Bill C-419 (Historical)

Language Skills Act

An Act respecting language skills

This enactment provides that persons appointed to certain offices must be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages.

Official Languages

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. I know him to be a very good person who does good work. Unfortunately, he did not answer my questions and that is very disappointing.

The NDP is very proud of its work on official languages. We are the ones who introduced Bill C-419 to ensure that all officers of Parliament are bilingual. That is thanks to former hon. member Alexandrine Latendresse. We are very proud of that bill.

We continued to work very hard. As I said, Yvon Godin worked very hard. We are the only ones who want to pass a bill to ensure that Supreme Court justices are bilingual.

Unfortunately, my hon. colleague did not answer my question. I would like to give him one last chance because this is my last attempt for today.

Does he at least support the recommendations of the latest report by the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled in 2013 regarding access to justice and judges in superior courts?

Supreme Court Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to express my support for Bill C-208.

This bill would amend the Supreme Court Act to require that only judges who can communicate well in French and English without the assistance of an interpreter be appointed to the Supreme Court.

I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague, the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who is the NDP's official languages critic, for the remarkable diligence he demonstrated in introducing this bill.

I mention his remarkable diligence because, despite the Conservative government's opposition to this bill, my colleague never gave up. He kept fighting to ensure respect for linguistic equality before the courts for all Canadians, especially those who live in minority francophone communities.

This is my colleague's third attempt since 2008 to get this bill passed. Let us not forget that, four years ago, this same bill, known then as C-232, passed third reading. Despite the opposition of all Conservative members, including francophone Conservative members, my colleague managed to get Bill C-232 passed in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, the bill was blocked in the Senate by Conservative senators, some of whom were francophone, as incredible as that might seem.

The Senate and unelected senators blocked Bill C-232 until the March 2011 election was called. The bill would have protected the interests of Canada's linguistic minorities, but they let it die on the order paper. That is both shameful and an insult to democracy.

Fortunately, my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst will continue to work tirelessly to protect the rights of linguistic minorities. I can guarantee that he has the support of all NDP MPs and that, together, we will continue to fight to ensure respect for our two official languages from coast to coast.

The NDP is not alone in this fight. My colleague's bill has been praised and supported by many non-partisan stakeholders. For instance, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has said several times that he believes that Supreme Court judges should be bilingual; he also supported Bill C-232 in the previous Parliament.

According to the commissioner, any litigant appearing before the Supreme Court should have the right to be heard and understood by all the judges in either official language without the aid of an interpreter. The Barreau du Québec, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, and a number of law professors also support the NDP's position on having bilingual Supreme Court judges.

However, the Conservative government has used every possible obstructive measure to undermine the NDP's efforts to have this bill passed, while claiming that they are looking after the language rights of French-language minority Canadians.

The simple fact that an issue of paramount importance like equality before the law is being raised in a private member's bill instead of in a government bill is an indication of how little importance the Conservative government attaches to the language rights of francophones.

In addition to appointing a unilingual anglophone Auditor General to Parliament, this government appointed two unilingual anglophone judges to the Supreme Court, Justice Rothstein and Justice Moldaver. In fact, there is a pool of highly qualified and fully bilingual judges, but the Conservative government pays no heed to that for partisan reasons.

The Conservatives seem to be forgetting that Canada was founded as a result of the hard work of two linguistic and cultural groups. Ignoring the right of francophones to have access to justice in their own language is betraying one of Canada's founding principles that is based on co-operation between the two linguistic communities.

Bilingualism and Canada go hand in hand, just like the traditions of British common law and French civil law go hand in hand. Denying the full equality of French in our courts is ignoring a fundamental principle of our nation. Our country's highest court must reflect Canada's bilingualism.

In addition to these matters of principle, there are also technical considerations with respect to the limitations of translation, which also point to the importance of having bilingual Supreme Court judges.

Surely it goes without saying that there are numerous nuances and subtleties in every language that can and often do get lost in translation. This is of crucial importance when matters of law and justice are concerned, especially at the Supreme Court level, the final court of appeal for all Canadians.

One significant problem lies in what Professor Ruth King, a member of the Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics at York University, refers to as code switches. Professor King defines code switches as sentences that use verbs to communicate opinions or belief. Statements such as “I think”, “I guess”, or “I believe” all work to underscore the speaker's stance or truth of the proposition and in some cases to indicate a degree of uncertainty.

King argues that terms such as these can be translated in French using words that can either enhance or diminish the degree to which the proposition is true. Based on her research, one can conclude that translators who translate between the French and English languages are likely to face problems in accurately conveying the meaning of a statement, not because those translators are bad at their job but because there are simply too many nuances and subtleties in both of our official languages to rely solely on translation when it comes to legal matters. Therefore, Canadians who have to rely on translation to make their case for justice are at an automatic disadvantage. The same applies to many other situations.

For example, if a test written in French is given to one who only speaks English, it is unlikely that person would be able to perform to the best of his or her ability, as relying on a translator would stand as an impediment. In 1998, Professor R.K. Hambleton performed a number of studies on the reliability and validity of tests administered across language and cultures. His research concluded that language did, in fact, play a significant factor in one's ability to perform well on a test. Hambleton suggests that despite the use of translators, when one is tested in a language that is not his or her own, the results are not an accurate representation of the person's knowledge.

Hambleton concludes that it is imperative for tests to be administered in one's native language in order to gain truly reflective results. Much like taking a test, trials rely on the interpretation of questions, by which judgments are based on one's response. If a question is answered incorrectly due to its interpretation, this poses a fundamental risk to the reliability and validity of a verdict. Simply requiring all judges to be fluent in both English and French can reduce such problems. By removing the language barrier, all Canadians, both English and French, will receive equal opportunities to a fair and reliable trial.

Therefore, the inherent limitations of translation requires judges to be able to communicate in both English and French in order to avoid any misinterpretations of vital information. Given the responsibilities and integrity of the Supreme Court of Canada, it is absolutely essential that any room for error be eliminated. If judges are required to speak both English and French as it is being proposed in this bill, the chance for misinterpretation might not be eliminated, but it would certainly be greatly reduced and go toward improving our trial process in the Supreme Court.

It is the responsibility of the House to ensure that the Supreme Court of Canada provides sound and equal treatment to all citizens of Canada. What is more, it is inexcusable to risk a Superior Court that cannot discern testimony with utmost accuracy and precision and fails to offer the optimal conditions for all those who seek justice.

In closing, I ask my colleagues from all political parties to rise above polarizing partisan divisions and make good use of this opportunity to restore the faith and respect Canadians once had for this great Parliament. As this House did with Bill C-419, let us work together to support this motion that seeks to uphold two of our most cherished, fundamental constitutional rights: equality before the law and equality of our two official languages.

I call on all members of the House, especially my Conservative colleagues across the way, to vote in favour of this motion and send the right message to all Canadians that we have respect for both official languages groups, that we have respect for those who are in minority situations to be understood in the highest court of law. I ask them to work with us to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights for further deliberation.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to speak to Bill C-208, which was introduced by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst. I know how important official languages are to him and to the vast majority of francophones from one end of this country to the other, myself included.

To begin, I would like to congratulate him for bringing back this bill. I would also like to thank him for how passionately he defends our shared mother tongue and our country's official language minority communities.

This bill would amend the Supreme Court Act and introduce a new requirement for judges appointed to the country's highest court to understand both official languages without the assistance of an interpreter.

For the NDP, this bill is primarily about equality—equal access to justice and the equality of our country's two official languages.

As my colleagues have said, the NDP is the only party that is proposing meaningful action to promote and protect the equality of Canada's two official languages. It is also the only party that is proposing initiatives to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities.

Not only is this the member for Acadie—Bathurst's third attempt to get Parliament to ratify this principle, but this initiative is also closely aligned with Bill C-419 on bilingualism requirements for officers of Parliament, which was introduced by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent and received royal assent last June.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent on this unprecedented victory and all of his hard work on this file.

I hope the Conservative members have finally understood the importance of protecting language rights, and I hope they will support this important bill despite what we have heard today.

This is the third time that my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst has introduced this bill since 2008. The last time we debated it in the House, members passed it on March 31, 2010.

Why are we debating it again today? The answer is simple but distressing. Unelected, unaccountable senators in the Conservative caucus who do not represent Canadians blocked this bill for a full year until the March 2011 election. As a result, Bill C-232 died on the order paper.

That is another good reason to abolish that archaic and completely undemocratic institution. To all those who argue that the Senate and senators serve the interests of Canada's linguistic minorities, well, we can forget about that.

One important fact is that when Bill C-232 was passed in the House of Commons in May 2010, the Conservatives had a minority government. All the Conservative members, including the francophone Conservative members, voted against the bill. That is shameful. However, since the opposition voted to support the bill, it managed to pass in the House.

I do not need to paint a picture to explain to people that, considering that outcome, someone must have received a call from the Prime Minister's Office instructing the government's friends in the upper chamber to do everything in their power to throw a monkey wrench into the plans and obstruct the democratic will of this House, which is filled with the elected representatives of the Canadian people. Accordingly, we are trying again.

Many groups and individuals have expressed their support for the amendment to the Supreme Court Act that is proposed in Bill C-208.

Graham Fraser, the Commissioner of Official Languages, is one of them. When he released his annual report on November 7, 2013, he stated:

There have also been a few outcomes during my tenure that I would characterize as conspicuous failures. For example, the government failed to see the importance of having bilingual Supreme Court judges. I have given my support to Bill C-232, which sought to amend the Supreme Court of Canada Act, as I firmly believe that any litigant appearing before the Supreme Court should have the right to be heard and understood by all the judges in either official language without the aid of an interpreter.

Other stakeholders, such as the Barreau du Québec, the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Fédération des associations de juristes d'expression française de common law, the Association des juristes d'expression française du Nouveau-Brunswick, and Sébastien Grammond, dean of the faculty of law at the University of Ottawa, have said they support my colleague's bill.

They all agree that this is a matter of equal access to justice, and they acknowledge the importance of being understood in the official language of our choice by the highest court in the land, without a third party interpreting our words, which can lead to interpretations that are inconsistent with what was really said.

As a Quebecker, I would like to add that it is particularly important to my constituents that the highest court in the land understand both our national language and our civil law tradition.

I am troubled by the comments made by those who oppose this bill. Some believe that the condition of understanding both official languages without the aid of an interpreter would be an obstacle to appointing the best people to fill this role, those who merit the position the most. That argument would suggest that there are not enough qualified bilingual judges to serve as Supreme Court judges. That argument is simply wrong.

A study conducted in 2011 by professors Mark Power and Sébastien Grammond showed that, even if Quebec is excluded, 25% of the 124 judges who serve on provincial appeals courts and the Federal Court of Appeal can hear a case in French without the aid of an interpreter. Are we not capable of finding a judge in that group worthy of serving on the Supreme Court?

The NDP believes that to become a Supreme Court judge, one must have all the necessary skills, including the ability to understand Canada's two official languages.

Not only did the members opposite vote against Bill C-232, but the Conservative government appointed two unilingual judges, Justices Moldaver and Rothstein, to the Supreme Court. I do not know if that was out of partisanship or contempt for francophones, but it is clearly unacceptable, not just to us, but to all francophones in Canada, whether they are Quebeckers or members of a francophone minority community.

Even the new Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages has said that the appointment of bilingual judges to the Supreme Court of Canada is not essential.

As Chantal Hébert rightly said in an article entitled “Bilingualism at the Supreme Court for dummies” published in the April 2010 issue of L'actualité:

The fact is that refusing to make the ability to function in both official languages a selection criterion for Supreme Court justices makes English the main language of an institution...at the heart of public life in Canada...

If the Prime Minister had not been able to address Canadians in both official languages and had not rectified the situation in a timely manner, he never would have been elected Prime Minister. That might have been better for the country, but we will talk about that again during the election campaign.

The same is true for the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Employment and Social Development, since they are both in the running to replace the current Prime Minister after he loses the election in 2015.

I am already hearing grumbling from my colleagues opposite, who will probably try to claim that under the current system, a unilingual francophone judge could also be appointed to the Supreme Court. My response to that is simple. In more than 145 years, not once has a judge who speaks and understands only French been appointed to the highest court in the country. Never.

Never in Canada's history have we nominated a French unilingual judge to the Supreme Court of Canada. Never.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to address my colleagues who need an interpretation to understand what I have been saying in my mother tongue.

First, the laws of this country are not written in English and then translated. They are written simultaneously and independently in both languages.

Second, the Supreme Court of Canada is the very last legal recourse that a person has.

Third, as highly qualified as interpreters are, and here I would like to salute the House of Commons interpreters for their difficult and professional work, every language has its subtleties, particularly legalese.

Let me give an example. At a recent event, someone used the phrase “invités de marque”, which I would translate as important visitors or VIPs. It was translated as “Mark's guests”. That type of mistake, which completely changes the meaning of the sentence, could be costly in a court of law, particularly when it is one's last recourse.

I hope that my Conservative colleagues from Quebec will listen to reason this time and will remember where they come from. With the bill on bilingualism of officers of Parliament, they have already shown that it is possible to work together to promote Canada's official languages.

It is possible to do the same with the bill to require that Supreme Court justices be bilingual.

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

moved that Bill C-208, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise for the third time in the House to speak to Bill C-208, which would require Supreme Court justices to be bilingual so that they can respond to Canadian citizens.

Thirteen years ago, on February 28, two hours before I made a speech in the House of Commons about taxes on mechanics' tools, I was thinking that my grandson Jonathan, who was born two days later, might one day use these tools if he decided to become a mechanic.

Today, as I wish Jonathan a happy birthday, I hope that my other grandson, Alexandre Matis, and my granddaughter, Lily Ève, will be able to be heard in the official language of their choice, which is French, if they ever need to go to the Supreme Court.

Today, my New Democrat colleagues and I are back with my Bill C-208, which would make being bilingual in French and English a new condition for appointing justices to the Supreme Court of Canada.

This is my third attempt to get this initiative passed. In 2010, this bill, known at the time as Bill C-232, was passed by the House of Commons. To my great disappointment, the Conservative senators used their majority in the Senate to block the bill. The bill then died on the order paper when the 2011 election was called.

The Conservatives have repeatedly shown their contempt for official languages by appointing two unilingual anglophone justices to the Supreme Court and by appointing a unilingual auditor general.

The NDP thinks that there is another way to do things. The NDP is the only party that is proposing concrete measures to promote and protect our official languages. Thanks to the NDP, the House recently passed Bill C-419, which corrects the Conservatives' mistake by ensuring that officers of Parliament will now have to be bilingual when they are appointed. It is time for us to make understanding both official languages an essential condition of being appointed to the Supreme Court.

I would like to speak to the importance of this bill. This is a question of access to justice. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the country, and it is very important that the justices be able to understand both official languages without the help of an interpreter. I have the utmost respect for the work of interpreters, but we know that interpretation has its limits. Numerous lawyers have noticed errors and omissions in the interpretation of their arguments before the Supreme Court.

I am thinking, in particular, about Michel Doucet, a law professor at the Université de Moncton, the former dean of the law faculty at the university and a language rights expert. He spoke to the issue when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages:

In the week after I had argued a case before the Supreme Court, I had an opportunity to hear the English version of my arguments on CPAC, and I understood why I had lost the case five to four. The translation did not allow me to understand my own words. I wonder how justices can fully understand the matter at hand when they have to go through translation in which significant aspects of a submission are missing. When you win 9:0, there is no problem, but when you lose 5 to 4, you automatically wonder whether you should not have argued in English.

There are many examples of questionable interpretation at the Supreme Court. A lawyer arguing his case before the court mentioned a Monsieur Saint-Coeur and the interpreter rendered it as “Mr. Five O'clock”. Even the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has weighed in on the importance of understanding the arguments presented without the help of an intermediary.

In June 2009, he told members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights:

Given the complexity and the extreme importance of the cases heard by this court, judges should be able to hear arguments presented to them without using an interpreter to understand nuanced and complex legal arguments.

According to Sébastien Grammond, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa, interpretation may lead to “loss of precision which, in some cases, can even involve the omission of certain sentences”.

This loss of precision can also be found in the documents submitted by the parties to the proceedings. These documents are not translated by the court. Unilingual judges must rely on the briefs prepared by court clerks, who are often young lawyers with little legal experience.

The presence of unilingual judges on the bench of the Supreme Court also poses a problem during closed-door deliberations without an interpreter. Francophone judges must always express their opinions, ideas and knowledge in their second language. Therefore, there is a risk that they will be much less precise.

If the justices can function in both official languages, everyone can work in the language of their choice. The bilingualism of judges is therefore a question of the equality of francophones and anglophones in terms of access to justice.

The bilingualism of Supreme Court justices ensures the equality of both official languages.

We have to remember that the Supreme Court has recognized the equality of French and English.

Laws are drafted in both official languages. Both versions have the same weight and neither one takes precedence over the other.

Our language duality is part of our Canadian identity. We have to embrace it.

Is there substantive equality when a francophone appears before the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court is not there to reward ambitious lawyers or judges. It is there to dispense justice for all Canadians.

Serving on the Supreme Court is not a right, but having fair access to justice is a right. Remember that the court is there to serve Canadians, not the interests of the judge.

The issue of requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual has been debated for several years.

I think it is wrong for francophones to have to make themselves understood by unilingual judges through the filter of interpretation, especially before the highest court in the land.

If Canada's two official languages are to be truly equal, it is important that bilingualism be an essential requirement when judges are appointed to the Supreme Court.

Lastly, my bill would ensure that the Supreme Court can serve all Canadians equally, whether their mother tongue is English or French.

The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, who is highly respected by all Canadians, has said several times that he supports requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual.

The Barreau du Québec has supported this bill for years now:

The Barreau has always believed that functional bilingualism should be among a Supreme Court judge's required skills in order to ensure equal access to justice, and it deplores that even today federal legislation has no provisions requiring that the nine Supreme Court judges be proficient in both official languages.

Many stakeholders in the official languages community support my bill, particularly the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne and its members:

The FCFA believes that all citizens have a right to be heard and understood before the highest court of Canada in their official language of choice, without the assistance of an interpreter.

Lastly, various linguistic rights experts have spoken out in favour of my bill, including Sébastien Grammond, Dean of Civil Law at the University of Ottawa, Gérard Lévesque, a very well-known lawyer for language rights, and Serge Rousselle and Michel Doucet, both law professors at the Université de Moncton.

Let me remind members that the NDP is the only party that proposes concrete measures to advance Canada's linguistic duality.

Bill C-419 on the mandatory bilingualism of officers of Parliament, introduced by my colleague, was passed by the House of Commons in 2013.

Let us not forget that the Quebec City marine rescue sub-centre remained open thanks to the pressure that my NDP colleagues and I put on the Conservative government, which intended to close this centre, the only French-language marine rescue centre in Canada.

The Conservative government has not shown any respect toward our official languages. I want to remind the House that it is the Prime Minister who appointed two unilingual judges to the Supreme Court. It is also the Conservative government that appointed a unilingual Auditor General to Parliament. Even the minister responsible for official languages is not in favour of my bill. Her riding of Saint Boniface, in Manitoba, includes thousands of francophones. What an insult to that community.

I also want to remind the members opposite that this former bill, Bill C-232, was passed by the House of Commons in 2010.

All the Conservative members voted against that bill, even the members from Quebec and those who have francophone communities in their ridings, such as the members for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe and Madawaska—Restigouche. Despite the opposition of the Conservative members, Bill C-232 was passed by the House of Commons; however, the unelected Conservative senators, including a number of francophones, held up the bill until the 2011 election was called.

The majority of the members in the House of Commons, who were elected by Canadians, voted in favour of this bill, but the unelected senators defeated the bill. Do not try to tell me that the Senate stands up for linguistic minorities.

In closing, I ask the members of all the parties to support this bill so that it can move along and be considered at the Standing Committee of Justice and Human Rights. We must protect the equality of our two official languages and equal access to justice.

In particular, I am calling on the Conservative members from Quebec and the members who have francophone communities in their ridings, such as the members for Madawaska—Restigouche, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, and Saint Boniface, to pressure their colleagues to support my bill, which seeks to ensure that the Supreme Court judges are bilingual.

If the Conservatives thought that bilingualism was necessary for becoming an officer of Parliament, then there is no reason why they should not do the same for the judges who sit on the benches of the highest court in the land.

The bill is a matter of justice and equality.

It is a matter of justice and equality.

Canadians have the right—it is more than just a privilege—to appear before a judge at the Federal Court of Canada and be heard and understood in the language of their choice. The same applies to the Federal Court of Appeal. It should also apply to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country.

I was at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights this week, and I asked officials from the Department of Justice whether there are enough bilingual judges in each province. If Canadians were to read the committee minutes, they would see that the response was yes. I then asked whether there are a lot of judges, and they said that there are enough.

I am waiting to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice tell us that the pool is not big enough, even though officials from his own department clearly told us in committee that it is a big pool. They told us that there are enough bilingual judges in every province.

I hope that the Conservatives will support my bill and bilingualism in Canada.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House this morning to present the reasons I support Canada's economic action plan 2013, Bill C-60. This plan, introduced by the best finance minister in the world, is thoughtful and reasonable, and most of all, it will help Canada with its economic recovery.

The global economy is still weak, and the economies of several European nations are very precarious. The economy of the United States, our biggest trading partner, is shaky. Canada's per capita GDP has been higher than that of the U.S. since 2011. That is unprecedented.

According to the highly reputable World Bank, Canada's per capita GDP was $50,343 in 2011, compared to $48,112 in the U.S. The performance in our country is 5% higher than our southern neighbour's. The World Bank also stated that Canada's per capita GDP growth outstripped that of our neighbours to the south.

Since 2010, our per capita GDP grew by 8.9%, compared to 3.2% for our most important economic partner. According to Statistics Canada’s report “Canada at a Glance 2013”, our country’s per capita GDP is higher than that of Germany, France and the United Kingdom. However, the government does not boast about these achievements. I am probably the first intervener to share these statistics with the House.

Canada is essentially an exporting country, so our economic recovery continues to depend on foreign markets. Nevertheless, since the depth of the recession, in July 2009, one million net new jobs have been created, the strongest economic growth of all the G7 countries. Ninety per cent of these one million net new jobs are full time, and 80% are in the private sector.

Independent organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predict that Canada will have the strongest growth of all the G7 nations in the coming years. Canada’s economic action plan 2013 has been so successful that the opposition has not had any questions for the best Minister of Finance in the world for several weeks. This plan proposes no tax increases. Small and medium-sized businesses have therefore been able to breathe easier since 2006.

In 2006, a typical small business with a taxable income of $500,000 paid, on average, nearly $84,000 in taxes. That amount has since dropped by $28,600, to $55,000. That is how we help businesses create jobs and drive innovation. While the opposition parties want to increase taxes on all fronts, the government has understood that low taxes are the best way to spur economic renewal. That is certainly why we were the last country to go into the recession and were the first to get out of it.

Thanks to our record of tax relief, a typical family will save more than $3,200 in 2013. One million lower-income Canadians will no longer pay taxes. We are on track to a balanced budget in 2015. That is great news. Thanks to measures to reduce spending and additional revenue, lower travel costs because of technology, the pursuit of measures to limit public service compensation and the elimination of tax loopholes benefiting a few taxpayers, we are even projecting a surplus of around $800 million in 2015-16.

That is a cautious projection. I should also point out that the net debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest, by far, of all the G7 countries.

Moreover, before the economic crisis hit our country, the government paid down $37 billion of our debt, bringing it to the lowest level in 25 years, and we will balance the budget without doing so on the backs of the provinces, as the third party did in the 1990s.

In 2013-14, the federal government will transfer $9 billion more to Ontario than did the previous government. This funding will give Ontario a second wind, allowing it to pay for increasingly costly health care. By investing in transfers to the provinces, we will avoid the psychodrama that unfolded in Ontario with the closures of 44 hospitals in the 1990s.

At that time we almost lost the only francophone hospital west of Quebec, the Montfort Hospital.

There is an old saying that you can tell a good workman by his tools. Canada’s economic action plan 2013 is there to give Canadians the right tools so they can stand out internationally. It is statistically proven that a number of skilled occupational groups are having a hard time recruiting workers.

We see that 6% of scientific jobs are unfilled. The figure for skilled jobs is 5.2%, and the national average is around 3.9%. If the companies that are having trouble recruiting staff were able to find what they are looking for, the unemployment rate would certainly reach record lows. That is why the government, under Bill C-60, aims to match Canadians with the jobs that are available.

By involving the federal and provincial governments, and with the participation of the private sector, we will be able to invest $15,000 per person to help job seekers gain the skills they need to fill the jobs that are in demand. I want to emphasize the word “invest”, since this is indeed an investment that will pay off in the medium and long term.

We will also continue to invest in our youth, the future of our great country. Canada’s economic action plan 2013 will promote education in high-demand fields such as science, technology, engineering, mathematics and the skilled trades.

We want to support high school students at risk of dropping out with tutoring and mentoring. Giving these students a role model is one of the best things we can do so they can walk out of school with diplomas.

Because we need to prepare for the future, the government also proposes to support young entrepreneurs by awarding $18 million to the Canada Youth Business Foundation. Young entrepreneurs would benefit from useful advice through mentoring, learning resources and start-up financing.

The Canada jobs grant is not the only initiative that would make a big difference for the families of Ottawa—Orléans and elsewhere in the country. Before my first election to this House 2,693 days ago, I pledged to assist families who adopt children. Adopting a child is one of the noblest gestures someone can make in our society. It gives an often needy child a chance to find a home and role models, thereby giving the child a much brighter future.

Bill C-60 will help families who want to change a child’s life through adoption. To help adoptive parents with the costs they face early in the process, certain adoption-related expenses that are incurred before a child’s adoption file is opened will be eligible for the adoption expense tax credit.

Under this tax credit, Canadians could claim adoption-related expenses from the moment they registered with a provincial ministry responsible for adoptions or a government-certified organization or from the moment an adoption request was referred to a Canadian court. The tax credit would apply to all adoptions completed after 2012.

It is my fondest wish that this measure will help more young children find a home.

Families would also be supported through various other initiatives, including our expanding tax relief for home care services, simplifying funeral and burial program for veterans, improving palliative care and combatting family violence.

I am not just talking about what this government has done since 2006, such as the universal child care credit, the family caregiver tax credit and the creation of the registered disability savings plan.

On the subject of job creation, we should highlight the Minister of State for Science and Technology and his tremendous work with the National Research Council of Canada, which will celebrate its centennial in 2016.

This agency, the National Research Council, employs 4,000 people in 50 locations across the country, one of which is at the doorstep of Ottawa—Orléans. The NRC is one of the pillars of Canada's innovation system. Unfortunately, over the past few decades, many innovations have languished on dusty shelves and have not been brought to market. Therefore, the NRC, an agency I value a great deal and have been supporting for several decades, would become more closely aligned with industry.

Global competition is intensifying and getting more complex, and Canada must carve out a place for itself. We have an enviable standard of living, but it comes with no guarantees.

We need to take action: we must encourage business to invest even more in research and technology development so that our country can enjoy sustained economic growth.

In co-operation with Canadian industries, which are major job creators themselves, the NRC will address Canada’s technological gaps so that we can remain an economic leader.

As part of this new approach, the NRC would support Canadian industries in large-scale research initiatives. As stated in Canada's economic action plan 2013, the NRC would receive $121 million to support this new role, and under the economic action plan, the government would also invest in world-class research and innovation by supporting advanced research and business innovation and by enhancing Canada's venture capital system.

As many in this House know, the spirit of volunteering and community support burns brightest in the constituency of Ottawa—Orléans.

There are some 300 organizations in Ottawa–Orléans that run mainly on one of the country’s most precious resources: volunteers.

Some of these agencies support seniors, like the Club 60 Rendez-vous des aînés francophones d’Ottawa and the Roy G. Hobbs Seniors Centre. The Orleans branch of the Royal Canadian Legion is virtually at the centre of veterans' social life in east Ottawa. The list goes on.

These agencies must raise funds to support their activities. In addition to the work of their dedicated volunteers, they need donations to survive.

It is important to encourage philanthropy. That is what economic action plan 2013 is doing with its first-time donor super credit. This is a sensible way of encouraging new donors to make charitable contributions. The super credit complements the charitable donations tax credit by adding a 25% tax credit for a first-time donation of more than $1,000.

It is also innovative that couples can share the super credit.

With an economic recovery that was lagging due to economic instability in other countries, the government understood that it had to meet the demands of municipalities and move ahead with another plan for long-term investment in Canada's infrastructure.

The city of Ottawa and the district of Ottawa-Orleans have benefited greatly from this economic stimulus program. We need only consider the construction of a light rail line in Ottawa. It will be a total investment of $2.1 billion, $785 million of which is from the federal taxpayers through the building Canada plan and the federal gas tax fund.

Economic action plan 2013 is proposing $53 billion over ten years. The city of Ottawa has been dealing with waste water pouring into the Ottawa River for several years. Although sewers are obviously a municipal responsibility, the federal government has a role to play, since the waste water from the city of Ottawa is going into an interprovincial river between the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.

Alas, water runs downhill. That is why the government has invested close to $33 million to help the city carry out the first two phases of the Ottawa River action plan. There is still work to be done. The third phase has not yet received funding. I sincerely hope that support can be provided through the revamped building Canada fund.

These measures will help the great residents of Ottawa–Orléans regain full use of Petrie Island, treasure of this community. When I was a child, we could swim in the Ottawa River. That is not a good idea anymore, and we have to do something about it.

Building Canada is not the only infrastructure program under economic action plan 2013. The government has introduced a community improvement fund, which will invest $32.2 billion over 10 years through the gas tax fund and GST rebates to municipalities. The government also plans to renew the P3 Canada fund, which would invest $1.25 billion over five years to support projects through public-private partnerships.

As the House knows, I am a passionate advocate of our two official languages. Canada's linguistic duality is one of its greatest assets.

That is why I have given my full support to Bill C-419, which was tabled by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I congratulate her on this bill.

Canada’s economic action plan 2013 introduces the most far-reaching and generous initiative in our history to promote our two official languages. The new roadmap will continue to support the learning of English and French as second languages, and will continue its support for minority school systems so as to foster the development of citizens and communities.

In short, Canada's economic action plan 2013 meets the high standards that we have come to expect of our Minister of Finance. It is a plan that calls us to action through sensible and targeted measures.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind attention, and I assure you I will entertain my colleagues’ questions with the same respect.

Language Skills Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to an order made on Wednesday, May 22 the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-419.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, be read the third time and passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to thank all of my colleagues for their kind words.

This is the ultimate chance for me to express my deepest gratitude to everyone. I am thankful to all members for believing in this bill. We are going through a rough week in Parliament, and I believe it is a welcomed change to see that everybody is of one mind on at least one topic.

I have enjoyed listening to what was said in the House during the debate. I am impressed by the attachment felt and expressed by my colleagues toward Canadian bilingualism.

If we look back just a short 50 years, we can clearly see all of the progress that has been accomplished in matters of minority linguistic rights in this country.

Linguistic diversity is a wonderful thing. In this particular case, Canadian society is very fortunate. We have made a choice to become a state where two languages will be equal in rights. For all those small French-speaking communities across the prairies, for the Franco-Ontarians, for the dynamic and creative Anglo-Quebeckers and for the wonderful Acadian nation, this decision embodies one very clear need, that being survival.

The days when we thought the only way for us to live together was to trample each other are not far removed from us. Terrible things were said, insults were exchanged and injustice often had the upper hand.

Looking back, we can see that somehow, by believing in this crazy ideal, we have changed and succeeded. This House of our common understanding represents this leap forward that we have accomplished. The Parliament of Canada, true to the ideals of state bilingualism, functions in both official languages and, if I may add, functions very well, in English and in French.

Once again, I would like to salute the hard work of the talented translators and interpreters who contribute every day to making this institution all that it hopes itself to be. What we have here is a case of genuine excellence, and I believe all Canadians should be proud of this. Our most grateful thanks to all them.

However, translators and interpreters cannot do everything. They cannot be everywhere all the time. As well, certain positions necessary to the proper functioning of Parliament require a skill that elected officials do not need. Officers of Parliament are an integral part of the system. In fact, they are the safeguards embedded in the system that make sure everything is lawful, proper and in order.

As such, the individuals who hold these positions are as important as the security staff on the Hill. The friendly security guards protect the physical integrity of this Parliament whereas the officers of Parliament protect its moral integrity.

It goes without saying that both groups need to be bilingual. Both groups need to be available for elected officials and Canadians at large, in English or in French.

Fortunately, it appears that we are all in agreement and saying that the list of 10 positions proposed in Bill C-419 includes people who must be bilingual in order to do their job. I think that this list, which is the cornerstone of my bill, kept as it is, even with the amendments put forward in committee, helps strengthen the foundations of our Parliament.

We are contributing to the effectiveness of Parliament and we are adding a greater sense of respect for this institution that, after all, represents all Canadians. Thanks to our goodwill, we are making tangible improvements. Furthermore, we are sending a clear message to the people of Canada. We are reiterating to them that bilingualism is a guarantee of excellence in the federal administration and that, in addition to opening doors, bilingualism first and foremost opens hearts.

I imagine that we will always have our little squabbles. Language is, after all, the highest and most impregnable bulwark of identity. As soon as there is the tiniest question about the place of honour that language holds in our pride in our identity, anyone and everyone gets up in arms. We start saying “we” instead of “I” and we ascribe cohesive intentions and ideals to millions of people who do not even know each other.

Let us keep in mind that we have sometimes courted disaster by trying to be too proud and too strong. I believe that my generation has understood that a fluid identity is a good thing and a clear, firm step towards the other. This is a multi-faceted world, and the people of my generation are too busy experiencing this diversity to martyr themselves to the cause of national retrenchment. My generation is no longer afraid it will disappear—it is only afraid of not being able to reach its full potential.

I encourage young Canadians growing up in linguistic minority communities to believe in their own language and the benefits it offers. I would remind young people who are part of the linguistic majority, Quebeckers and English Canadians, that the world will open up to them if only they open up to it. I beg them not to turn inward because they are unwilling to learn. If they open their hearts to other languages, they will never regret it.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent on her bill concerning bilingualism as a hiring requirement for officers of Parliament. This gap is totally unacceptable and has lasted for far too long. Needless to say, the subject of this bill, namely Canada's linguistic duality, is a key issue.

Respect for Canada's two official languages is a priority for the NDP. This bill is very timely, since this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission.

A Statistics Canada study released on Tuesday tracking bilingualism from 1961 to 2011 shows that young people are less and less exposed to French, and few immigrants are bilingual.

The Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, has also expressed concern about the statistics shown by this study. This trend is not a good omen. The study tracked the evolution of bilingualism in Canada since the Laurendeau-Dunton commission was created. That is what laid the foundations for Canada's policy on bilingualism.

When it comes to public life and bilingualism in Canada, certain concrete measures have far-reaching effects. This is why my colleague introduced this bill.

This is about defending bilingualism in Canada, so we need to take meaningful action to do that. Obviously, we all know that this bill stems from the controversy generated by the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General in November 2011, when the job posting for the vacancy clearly said that proficiency in both official languages was an essential qualification for the position.

In spite of the government’s change of direction on this bill, the fact remains that its track record in this regard is not a glowing one, and its negligence is detrimental to Canada's linguistic duality. The most blatant example of this was the appointment of Michael Ferguson as Auditor General.

That is why the NDP decided to take action by introducing a bill to recognize that officers of Parliament must be fluent in both official languages at the time they take up their positions. I am therefore glad that the government has ultimately listened to reason on this issue, at least with respect to officers of Parliament. That is a start. The Conservative government has a chance to stop taking us backward on official languages. This is a simple matter of respecting the language rights of Canadians and the parliamentarians who represent them.

Proficiency in both official languages at the time of appointment must be recognized as an essential qualification for the 10 key positions identified in the bill. The policy on official bilingualism must apply to officers of Parliament. If it does not, Canada's linguistic duality will be seriously undermined.

Let us now look at this bill, and how important it is, in greater detail.

By the nature of their duties, officers of Parliament have to be able to communicate with parliamentarians and Canadians in the official language of their choice. We know very well that this was not the case for the appointment of the Auditor General.

Accordingly, if the bill is enacted, future occupants of the 10 positions in question will have to understand French and English without the assistance of an interpreter and will have to be able to express themselves clearly in both official languages when they take up their position. It therefore recognizes that proficiency in both official languages is essential to the performance of their duties.

The following positions will be affected by these measures: Auditor General of Canada, Chief Electoral Officer, Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, Privacy Commissioner and Information Commissioner.

Under this bill, the appointment of a unilingual person to the position of Auditor General or to any other of the 10 key positions would simply have been impossible.

This bill has brilliantly managed to clarify the linguistic obligations of officers of Parliament so that this kind of situation will never occur again. Only 10 positions are affected by the bill, which thus acknowledges that proficiency in both official languages is essential in performing the duties of officers of Parliament. Consequently, officers must have that proficiency at the time they take up their duties, for a number of reasons.

The Constitution provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada. English and French enjoy equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in the institutions of Parliament. Parliamentarians have a right to use English or French in the debates and proceedings of Parliament.

Since officers of Parliament maintain close ties with Parliament and must interact with parliamentarians, it is essential that the incumbents of those positions be proficient in both official languages at the time they are hired. This is also quite obviously a simple matter of respect for our official languages, which, under the Constitution, have the same status in Canada, and for both linguistic groups.

Everything thus stems from the NDP's actions in this matter because the NDP filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada following the appointment of a unilingual individual to the position of Auditor General.

In June 2012, the commissioner concluded in his final investigation report that the position of Auditor General should have been filled by a candidate with proficiency in Canada's two official languages. In the commissioner's view, the Office of the Auditor General is required under the Official Languages Act to offer services in both official languages, and the same is true of the Auditor General himself as the public face of a federal institution that reports to Parliament.

He also concluded that the Privy Council Office, which manages Governor in Council appointments, had failed to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act.

According to the commissioner, historically, the appointment process for officers of Parliament was administered by the Senior Appointments Secretariat at the Privy Council Office. The process does not contain precise language for fluency provisions for incumbents of these positions. It is when the position becomes vacant and a recruitment strategy is put in place with specific selection criteria that linguistic requirements are determined.

Thus Bill C-419 also offers a solution to the absence of specific provisions regarding the language skills of officers of Parliament.

This bill is particularly important for the francophones of all countries, including Quebeckers. Quebec's National Assembly unanimously condemned this appointment and the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne strongly denounced it.

The response of the Commissioner of Official Languages and francophones across the country is clear, as is the NDP's approach. We will no longer tolerate unilingual appointments to such important positions.

In conclusion, and because we are dealing with important positions, I would also like to tell the Conservative government again how important it is that judges on the Supreme Court be bilingual, and this should be the second logical step to be taken by the government.

The debate is not over. We still have not swallowed the appointment of the unilingual Justice Moldaver to the Supreme Court. With the government's continued refusal to include bilingualism as a selection criterion for the appointment of judges, English is becoming the main language of an institution that is central to Canadian public life. Therefore, there is still much work to be done in terms of bilingualism in Canada, and it is high time that this changed. The time for defending the principle of unilingual central institutions, such as the Supreme Court, has come and gone.

I said earlier and I repeat that my colleague’s bill will remedy this deplorable situation regarding officers of Parliament. Proficiency in both official languages is essential for some positions.

As we know, the NDP is firmly committed to protecting the language rights of Canadians, and we hope that all parliamentarians will support Bill C-419 so that it becomes law.

I am sure members will agree with me when I say that this bill is very important for francophones in all countries, and especially the constituents of Montcalm, who for the most part are French-speaking. Many of them have Acadian roots. Therefore, for the four municipalities of New Acadia and for the NDP members from Quebec, respect for both official languages is a priority, but for the people in my riding of Montcalm, being served in French is not a choice, it is simply a very legitimate right.

[Annick Papillon, NDP, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-419 today. I want to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, whose riding is next to mine, on her wonderful, excellent work.

My colleague introduced Bill C-419 after a unilingual anglophone was appointed Auditor General in November 2011. At first the Conservative government defended the appointment of the Auditor General and opposed the bill.

Fortunately, the government has since changed its mind and seems to now support the NDP's bill. If it passes, Bill C-419 will ensure that future appointees to the 10 officer of Parliament positions set out in the bill will be required to understand French and English without the assistance of an interpreter and will have to be able to express themselves clearly in both official languages.

In short, Bill C-419 sets out the 10 positions for which bilingualism is considered an essential qualification. Because of the nature of the work, these positions require the individual to communicate with all parliamentarians and Canadians in the official language of their choice. It is a matter of respect.

I am happy to see that the bill has made it through the important step of being studied by the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The essence of the bill remained intact, which is excellent news.

However, I have to wonder why the Conservatives did not explain some of the amendments they proposed to the structure of the bill. The Conservatives removed the preamble, which emphasized the importance of the equal status of French and English in parliamentary institutions and in the Constitution.

When he was called upon to speak to the bill, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, spoke in favour of including such a preamble in the bill. He said:

I have heard no arguments for deleting this preamble. It is practical, and I consider it useful. It expresses the spirit of the bill, its goals and objectives, so that ordinary people can understand why the bill has been introduced. It also describes the bill's overall aims.

It is unfortunate, but it has become apparent that, when the Conservatives amend legislation, far too often they remove the context and historical references. It is truly disgraceful. That kind of attitude must be denounced and corrected. I suggest that the Conservatives change their approach.

I sometimes get the impression that the Conservative government is confused about its definition of bilingualism. You have to admit that it is hard to reconcile how, on the one hand, the Conservatives claim to be advocates for official languages and yet, on the other hand, they impose budgetary restrictions at the expense of bilingualism. The fact is that if you peel away the rhetoric, French is far too often given second-class status. There are so many examples attesting to this that it is impossible not to doubt the sincerity of the Conservative government.

Here are the plain facts. The government appointed a unilingual anglophone to the position of Auditor General. The Conservative government also appoints unilingual anglophone judges to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is the Conservative government that coerces francophone public servants to work more often in English. It was under a Conservative government that the pilots who travel on the Saint Lawrence River between Quebec City and Montreal had to file a complaint last winter with the Commissioner of Official Languages because they were unable to communicate in French with the crews of two Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers. Finally, it is also this Conservative government that does not see the problem with closing the only bilingual rescue centre in Canada, perhaps even in North America.

There is no doubt that the state of bilingualism in Canada is cause for great concern. Last year, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, expressed his fear that the $5.2 billion in spending cuts called for by Ottawa between now and 2015 would result in a number of unwelcome surprises, such as a reduction in the services provided in both official languages. Unfortunately, the commissioner’s predictions seem to be coming true. The members on the other side of the House do not know where the money is going. Furthermore, in the blink of an eye, $3 billion that was supposed to go towards fighting terrorism has gone missing. Had the government invested in bilingualism, perhaps we would not be where we are today.

According to an article in the daily newspaper Le Devoir, budget cuts are forcing departments to reduce the number of documents they have translated. This is evidenced by the fact that the production rate at the Translation Bureau dropped by 9% in 2011–12, with a further drop of 17% forecast for 2012–13. Moreover, departments are asking francophone staff to write their reports in English in order to save time and money.

In my opinion, the situation is, quite simply, unacceptable. Ottawa is even streamlining the office of Commissioner Fraser. In future, it will have to use money from its own budget to update its computer systems in order to process complaints more efficiently.

If the government really cares about bilingualism, as we do on this side of the House, logically, it should be providing the commissioner with more resources so that he can do his job properly.

Recently, I read in a newspaper that bilingualism has stagnated over the past decade. This is really appalling. We want more and more people across Canada, geographically the second-largest country in the world, to be proud of their Canadian history, which endowed us with two official languages.

These two languages allow us to bring together people from all continents. We should be more proud of that. That is why it is important to invest in this area and to tap into Canadian pride regarding our two wonderful official languages, French and English.

In 2002, the Prime Minister said that Canada is not a bilingual country. Ironically, today he is saying that it is his duty to protect the French language throughout this country. How times have changed. Again this week, however, according to an article in Le Droit, the Commissioner of Official Languages said that he needed to weigh his options for forcing the government to abide by the Official Languages Act when appointing judges, ambassadors, deputy ministers and heads of crown corporations.

Last year, Graham Fraser asked that the Privy Council Office, the Prime Minister's department, take into consideration the Official Languages Act when determining the language requirements for thousands of positions filled by Governor in Council appointments.

In the commissioner's opinion, if a position requires a bilingual candidate, the government should ensure that the selection committee respects that criterion. One year later, the government has remained silent on that recommendation.

Here is part of a letter that Mr. Fraser wrote to the member for Acadie—Bathurst, who does outstanding work on the Standing Committee on Official Languages:

[The Privy Council Office] has yet to follow through on our recommendations...We are currently weighing our options for ensuring that the [Privy Council Office] fulfills its key mandate of helping the government meet its commitments pursuant to part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Part VII of the act stipulates that the federal government must work to enhance the vitality of linguistic minority communities and promote the use of French and English in Canadian society. It is important to note that it is in no way necessary for everyone appointed by the Privy Council Office to be bilingual, but those who work with the public must, generally speaking, be proficient in both languages.

There needs to be objective criteria governing language levels for each position, and that is why Bill C-419 is so important.

To conclude, I invite all of my colleagues, from all parties on this side of the House as well as the Conservatives across the aisle, to support this bill. Too many mistakes have been made in the past.

People who show real leadership are able to acknowledge their mistakes and move forward. That is what this bill is proposing. It is a significant bill because it concerns official languages, one of the pillars of Canada's history. We have an opportunity here to show unity and vote unanimously on a bill that concerns us all. This would be a step in the right direction.

It is time to show Canadians that although parliamentarians may sometimes disagree on many issues, we can stand together when it comes to respecting Canada's official languages. We can say they are a source of pride and that we must invest more so that one day we can all speak both languages in order to communicate better with each other and live in a better society.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her work at the Standing Committee on Official Languages and for her impassioned speech here today.

I have the honour of rising today to support Bill C-419 introduced by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I had a rather unusual youth. I am a Franco-Ontarian born in Toronto. My father's family is anglophone and has lived in Scarborough for over 90 years, while my mother comes from a francophone family from Sherbrooke and Montreal. When I was young, living in Toronto, I was very fortunate to get my education at the Petit Chaperon Rouge francophone daycare, the Georges-Étienne Cartier Catholic elementary school and the Bishop de Charbonnel Catholic high school. I understand what it means to be part of a linguistic minority.

I was also lucky because my anglophone father, David Harris, studied in Montreal so he could learn French. He has now been teaching French to young anglophones in Scarborough for 25 years. Linguistic duality is very important for me and my family.

Bill C-419 is intended to make a positive change by ensuring that future officers of Parliament work in both official languages from the time they are appointed, so that Canadians receive services in the official language of their choice.

It is indeed my privilege to rise this evening to speak to a very important and critical bill, Bill C-419, an act respecting language skills.

As a fluently bilingual franco-Ontarian with deep familial roots in Quebec, my support for the bill is partly technical and partly personal. I have lived my whole life with the linguistic duality of Canada, and understand the importance of protecting our traditional language rights.

When I was a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages after being elected in 2011, I had the distinct honour of working with Mr. Graham Fraser, the Commissioner for Official Languages here in Canada. I developed a strong respect for Mr. Fraser in his view about official languages. His testimony in particular about the bill at committee was very important and provided a very important summary of the bill. He said:

Bill C-419, which was put forward by the New Democratic MP for Louis-Saint-Laurent, is to the point and unequivocal. Its purpose is to ensure that persons whose appointment requires the approval by resolution of the Senate, House of Commons, or both Houses of Parliament, can understand and express themselves clearly in both official languages without the aid of an interpreter from the moment they are appointed. It is an important bill for the future of Canada's linguistic duality. I therefore support it unconditionally.

The bill is a response to the controversy caused by the Conservative appointment of a unilingual Auditor General in November 2011. While the notice of vacancy clearly indicated that proficiency in both official languages was an essential requirement to the position, the Conservative government sadly ignored this.

Given the protection of language rights embedded in the Constitution and the long history of custom and tradition, it is very unfortunate and disappointing that this type of bill is even necessary. However, the appointment of the unilingual Auditor General for Canada seemed to indicate the Conservative government's willingness to ignore our rights and traditions and roll back our official language rights.

We cannot let this happen. As parliamentarians we must do everything we can to protect our language rights when they are threatened. For that reason I thank in particular the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for bringing the bill forward and for getting support from all parties to ensure that kind of situation never happens again.

The bill helped tremendously in that effort. The bill of the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent clearly seeks to clarify the linguistic requirements for officers of Parliament to ensure that this type of situation does not happen again. It is a question of respecting the linguistic rights of Canadians and the members who represent them.

Officers of Parliament must be able to communicate with members of the Senate and the House of Commons as well as Canadians in the official language of their choice.

The bill, when adopted, would ensure that future holders of the ten following positions should understand both French and English without the assistance of an interpreter, and be able to express themselves clearly in both official languages when they take office.

It recognized that fluency in both official languages is essential for anyone holding the following positions. Unfortunately, as my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier mentioned, there were some changes at committee that added a bit of nuance or a lack of clarity in the bill.

The 10 positions that we are speaking of as officers of Parliament are: the Auditor General of Canada; the Chief Electoral Officer; the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada; the Privacy Commissioner; the Information Commissioner; the Senate Ethics Officer; the Conflicts of Interest and Ethics Commissioner; the Commissioner of Lobbying; the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner; and the President of the Public Service Commission.

Each of the above offices was created under legislation that specified, among other things, the terms of employment and the nature of the office's relationship with Parliament.

In my opinion, all of the positions I have just mentioned are officers of parliament. This is important, because officers of Parliament must work closely with Parliament and must interact with parliamentarians on a daily basis. It is essential that these officers can work with members in both official languages and must therefore be proficient in both official languages at the time of their employment.

Why must officers be bilingual at the time of their employment? First, we have the Constitution, which stipulates that French and English are the official languages of Canada. Second, French and English have equal status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament. Third, parliamentarians have the right to use either French or English during debates and work in Parliament.

I want to take a moment to express the joy and pride that I have being a member of the NDP caucus, with so many of our members being fluently bilingual and those who are unilingual are making tremendous efforts to learn Canada's other official language so they are better able to do their jobs and interact with their colleagues and other people in Parliament. I am incredibly proud of the number of MPs who are working on that day in and day out. Almost every day when I pass by the lobby, I can see two or three of our members working on that other official language to gain the skills to be better parliamentarians.

Again, this bill only became necessary following the appointment of a unilingual auditor general. Shortly after the announcement, the NDP filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada.

In June 2012, the commissioner in his final report about his investigation concluded that the position of auditor general should have been filled by a candidate who was proficient in both official languages. For the commissioner under the Official Languages Act, the Office of the Auditor General, as well as the Auditor General himself, is required to provide services in both official languages as a public figure of a government institution which responds to Parliament.

He also concluded that the Privy Council Office, which manages Governor in Council appointments, failed to comply with its obligations under the Official Languages Act.

According to the commissioner, “Historically, the appointment process for officers of Parliament was administered by the Senior Appointments Secretariat at the Privy Council Office. The process does not contain precise language proficiency provisions for incumbents of these positions. It is when the position becomes vacant and a recruitment strategy put in place with specific selection criteria that linguistic requirements are determined”.

In the case of the Auditor General, the requirements did state that the auditor general should be proficient in both of Canada's official languages.

Respect for Canada's two official languages has always been a priority for the NDP. Bill C-419 is consistent with this priority. We want all MPs to give their support to Bill C-419 so it soon becomes law. Proficiency in both official languages at the time of appointment must be recognized as essential, particularly for the 10 offices targeted in the bill.

With the adoption of Bill C-419, we are taking the first step in ensuring that all future officers of Parliament are bilingual and then we can move on to other aspects, like ensuring that Supreme Court of Canada justices are bilingual so they can hear court cases in both official languages without the need of interpretation.

I believe everyone who ever aspires to those high positions and roles should take it upon themselves to learn the other of Canada's official languages, if not already bilingual, so they can apply for these positions and take on the roles that we have in the institutions of Parliament, the Supreme Court and elsewhere to ensure that Canada's linguistic duality is not only respected, but enriched through those additional appointments of bilingual officers of Parliament.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills. I want to extend my sincere thanks to the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for having introduced such a worthwhile bill. We often run into each other because our ridings are side by side. I can attest to the outstanding work she does each and every day. The bill she introduced is yet another example of her good work.

I would also like to tip my hat to the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the NDP official languages critic, who has always been a fervent supporter of bilingualism and francophone minority communities. I want to applaud his efforts, which helped contribute to this bill's success.

As I said, I am very proud to support Bill C-419, which is designed to ensure that the 10 officers of Parliament are bilingual.

Having been raised in a perfectly bilingual military family, I have always cherished both official languages. I grew up watching both Passe-Partout and Sesame Street, and learning both French and English at home.

At a very early age, I was taught the importance of bilingualism in Canada as a way to better understand two of our founding nations and their culture. I was also taught that speaking both of Canada's official languages would offer me better employment opportunities, especially if I wanted to work in the public sector. Therefore, I have always believed that it was an essential prerequisite for the highest-ranking public servants to master both official languages in order to be appointed to such important positions.

When I was a parliamentary guide here in 2007, it was a point of pride for me to point out to visitors from other countries that bilingualism was a prerequisite for our highest-ranking public servants as a proof of the importance that was given to bilingualism in Canada.

Unfortunately, as has often been the case since I became a federal MP, the Conservative government has denied that basic principle since winning majority status. It appointed a unilingual English Auditor General who is still not able to respond to questions in French during press conferences.

Bill C-419 aims to fill a major gap in the current legislative framework, and that gap was made obvious with the Conservatives' ill-advised appointment. This bill also clarifies the language obligations of the 10 officers of Parliament. Given that their functions and roles require them to interact with parliamentarians and Canadians, they must be able to communicate with parliamentarians and Canadians in the official language of their audience's choice.

It was insinuated, in committee and elsewhere, that we were trying to violate the language rights of officers of Parliament, but that is clearly not the case with Bill C-419. In fact, there is nothing keeping an officer of Parliament, such as the auditor general, from conducting a press conference entirely in English. The important part is that they be able to respond to questions in French when necessary.

We are not trying to deny officers of Parliament the right to work in French. On the contrary, we are trying to guarantee the language rights of every Canadian. It is a matter of respect for all Canadians, whether they live in a minority language situation or not, and respect for the MPs they elected to represent them.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I had the opportunity to study my colleague's bill in detail and I saw the merits of it. I understood the need for this bill. The original version of it was excellent. It responded directly to the concerns raised by the appointment of the current Auditor General, among other things.

This bill received support from members of all parties represented in the House. Unfortunately, at committee stage, the bill was butchered. The committee's Conservative majority did everything in its power to limit the scope of the bill, going so far as to insinuate that the NDP was trying to institute measures that would discriminate against the hard of hearing. I have heard it all since I have been in Parliament. They also eliminated the preamble of the bill, which provided the definition of officer of Parliament.

Without that part of the bill, this concept remains rather vague.

The Conservatives also removed any mention of the fact that the Constitution recognizes French and English as Canada's two official languages that receive equal privileges in Parliament. They removed that. This is not something controversial. This should be common knowledge for everyone in the House, regardless of their party or whether they are unilingual or not. That was not the issue. I thought it was a real shame that the Conservatives did not want to include these fundamental principles in the final version of Bill C-419.

Quite honestly, when we look at their record when it comes to official languages, especially when it comes to defending the French fact and the French language in Canada, we are hardly surprised.

Consider the appointment of a unilingual anglophone Auditor General. We spoke about that in the House. The government promised that, in less than a year, Mr. Ferguson would have a sufficient mastery of the French language to at least be able to answer questions. That is still not the case today. It was truly unrealistic to make such a promise given the scope of the Auditor General's duties. It was absolutely illogical and inconceivable to think that, in just one short year, he could gain a sufficient mastery of the language of Molière to be able to answer people's questions and interact with them without the help of an interpreter.

Consider also the appointment of unilingual anglophone judges to the Supreme Court. For years, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst has been fighting to try to change the law and ensure that, even in the Supreme Court, people can really choose the language in which they want to interact. They can make that choice now, but there is no guarantee that the judges present will understand everything and that these people will truly receive equal treatment. They may receive less time to plead their case because the interpreters need time to do their job. Judges who do not have a good knowledge of French may not be able to grasp the subtleties in the documentary evidence.

We have here a host of problems that the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and other members of the NDP have been trying to resolve for years. We are faced with the same situation today: judges appointed to the Supreme Court do not understand French, not even the most basic French. This is problematic, and this government has an unbroken record of inaction in this regard.

Another example is the closure of the Maurice Lamontagne Institute library, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' only French library. This government shut down the library just to save a few bucks.

When we look at the different decisions this government has made, we unfortunately get the impression that French represents additional costs for Canadian taxpayers and that it is not necessarily considered a fundamental value or foundational principle of Canada. French is seen as a constraint and an obstacle to overcome, rather than “the language of ambition”, as the Commissioner of Official Languages so eloquently described it.

I want to get back to the closure of the Quebec City maritime search and rescue centre. There are some rumours in the papers that the government has apparently decided to reverse its decision to close the centre, but it still refuses to confirm that.

We tried to raise the issue several times at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We moved some motions. When the Commissioner of Official Languages appeared the last time, we even asked a number of questions about this issue. The commissioner completely agrees with the NDP that the government must guarantee bilingual services at the Halifax and Trenton centres. That is not currently the case. Both the Auditor General and the Commissioner of Official Languages illustrated that.

However, to save a few million dollars, the government is prepared to jeopardize the lives of the hundreds of thousands of people who use the St. Lawrence and who have the misfortune of being francophones in this country. That is really too bad, but it reflects the attitude we saw in committee.

Although the government was reluctant, we managed to keep the essence, the spirit of the bill. We are proud of that. Once again, I want to congratulate my colleague for working so hard and for being patient while working with members from all the parties. I am not always patient, so I admire that a lot.

The NDP has always been firmly committed to protecting the language rights of Quebeckers and all Canadians.

I hope that all parliamentarians will join the NDP in supporting this excellent bill, Bill C-419.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now that everybody is listening carefully, I am saying that we are discussing a bill that we should normally not have to discuss, something that has been taken for granted and that Canadians thought was done already.

The obligation for officers of Parliament to be bilingual and to speak Canada's two official languages is something that seemed self-evident until this Prime Minister appointed a unilingual Auditor General. That was a shock. The party to which I belong reacted so strongly that it refused to vote in favour of the appointment of that Auditor General. We left the House without even voting.

I would like to thank my colleague for preparing this bill, which we of course support and which will ensure that officers of Parliament are required by law to be bilingual at the time of their appointment. It made no sense to take them on as unilinguals and to say that they would learn the other official language on the job, while working. That would mean learning French because we know very well that a unilingual francophone will never be appointed. They will appoint unilingual anglophones and say that this is not a problem because the appointees will learn French.

It is insulting to tell Canadians that the incumbents of such crucially important positions will be asked to devote considerable time and effort to learning a language when they are over 40 or 50 years of age. They have better things to do. They must be able to understand both official languages at the time of their appointment.

The reasons for that are obvious. First, the role of an officer of Parliament, whether that of auditor general or another officer such as the commissioner of official languages, is to be able to speak with parliamentarians, to discuss matters with them and to understand them and make themselves understood.

Many of my colleagues are unilingual. To be elected in Canada, people do not need to be bilingual. They only need to convince voters that they are the best candidate. It is very important to be understood when speaking to, let us say, the Auditor General, and to understand what the Auditor General has to say. Since MPs are at the service of Parliament, they should be able to be understood by all parliamentarians.

That is the first reason. The second reason is that, in order to make decisions, officers of Parliament must read a large amount of information that comes to them from across Canada, including from Quebec, New Brunswick and many places in Canada where information is in French. How can they understand that information on their own if they cannot read it on their own? They need that information to make decisions. Competency includes the ability to read in both official languages.

The third reason is that the office in question, like the Office of the Auditor General, must also be able to work in both official languages. However, if the head of that office is a unilingual anglophone, everything will be done in English. The person at the top must therefore be able to understand both languages so that the office can operate in both languages.

There is another essential reason. The auditor general and the other officers of Parliament are not mere bureaucrats, but rather communicators. They must communicate their information to Canadians. Nuanced communication is not possible if they cannot speak to Canadians in both languages. I can say that the entire saga leading up to the sponsorship scandal would have been entirely different if the auditor general at the time had been unable to speak French, and I say that having experienced the event first-hand.

The other reason that the Auditor General and other officers of Parliament should be bilingual is to send the right message to the youth of our country. If they have ambition and want access to all the responsibilities of their country, they should learn the two official languages.

It is key for people to do that when they are 18 years old because it will be much more difficult when they are aged 48. When they will perhaps want access to these responsibilities, it may be too late. We need to send this message now, through this bill. It is key to shaping our country and the ability for Canada to pay tribute to its two official languages.

It is an incredible asset for us to have two official languages that are international languages. We need to be sure that it will be part of our future. We need to send a message that the most important responsibility, including yours, Mr. Speaker, is to be able to address fellow Canadians in the two official languages.

The Conservative government finally agreed to accept these arguments, and we are glad of that. I think it is important to emphasize that here where we are all together. It was not easy. They proposed amendments, but those amendments will not prevent us from voting in favour of the bill. Still, I would like to take this opportunity to say that those amendments were not useful. They added nothing very positive. They actually weakened the obligation to be bilingual. It has been weakened, but I think it is still strong enough. The ability to speak and understand both official languages well is a prerequisite for appointment. That will do; we can live with it. The bill is still “votable” despite the amendments that weaken it.

The Conservatives also eliminated clause 3, which provided that the Governor in Council could, by order, add offices to the list established in clause 2. In that way, the government could have added to the list of offices for which bilingualism would be mandatory, without returning to Parliament. A belief in bilingualism is a belief in making it more widespread. The government did not want to give itself that power; it wants to come back to Parliament. That does not change much in the end, because if a government really wanted to add more offices, it could come to Parliament and make a convincing argument. If it did not want to, no law could make it do that. Thus, it is not a useful amendment.

With another amendment, the governing party also eliminated clause 4 concerning interim appointments to the offices mentioned in Bill C-419. This clause read:

In the event of the absence or incapacity of the incumbent of any of the offices listed in section 2 or vacancy in any of these offices, the person appointed in the interim must meet the requirements set out in section 2 [that is, the bilingualism requirements].

We know what the Conservatives are trying to do, but they will not succeed. Once this bill has been passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, there will be no way to exempt any interim office holder from the law. According to the law, the interim incumbent must be bilingual. When a Canadian is given such a serious responsibility, whether permanently or temporarily, that person must meet the requirements set out in the law. If the law requires an auditor general to be bilingual, then an interim auditor general must also be bilingual. If the government were to defy this law, it would be defying common sense and leaving itself open to legal action.

Thus, despite these efforts by the Conservatives, this is still a good bill. I implore the government not to play games. We are ready to send it to the Senate quickly. I have talked with my Senate colleagues; they are ready to proceed quickly. The bill will be voted on in the House and sent to the Senate. The Senate will look at it carefully, as senators always do, but they can do it quickly. They must ensure that this bill becomes law and does not fall into limbo when the government decides to prorogue the House in an attempt to revive its moribund government.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, be read the third time and passed.

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this afternoon about the merits of economic action plan 2013.

I would like to especially thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie for his kind words at the beginning of his speech.

Although the worst of the economic crisis seems to be behind us, the government's priority must continue to be the economy and job creation. In that regard, economic action plan 2013 is right on the mark.

When the recession struck the best country in the world in 2008, the government responded with a bold plan to invest in our infrastructure. The city of Ottawa and the district of Ottawa—Orléans have benefited greatly from this economic stimulus program.

We need only consider the construction of an east-west light rail in Ottawa, a total investment of $2.1 billion, $785 million of which is from the federal taxpayers through the building Canada plan and the federal gas tax fund.

What is more, this capital investment, which is the top and only priority of the City of Ottawa, will create 20,000 jobs a year until 2018.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the member for Ottawa West—Nepean and Mayor Jim Watson and councillors Rainer Bloess, Bob Monette, Stephen Blais and Tim Tierney for their leadership in advancing this file.

We can also point to the investment of nearly $25 million for the first two phases of the Ottawa River action plan and of $6.7 million for the extension of the Hunt Club Road to Highway 417.

Thanks to the infrastructure improvement fund announced in January 2009 to help kick-start the Canadian economy, the people of Ottawa—Orléans have seen the delivery of 11 projects that directly affect them, at a value of over $11 million.

With an economic recovery that was lagging due to economic instability in other countries, the government understood that it had to meet the demands of municipalities and move ahead with another plan for long-term investment in Canada's infrastructure.

What economic action plan 2013 is proposing is $53 billion over 10 years.

Even though construction of Ottawa's light rail began only last week, elected officials and employees are already working on plans to expand it—even as far as the eastern end of Orléans.

This important project is close to my heart, and it could be supported by the building Canada plan and the community infrastructure improvement fund.

As you all know, linguistic duality is one of the values of this country that I cherish the most.

The French and English languages are integral to our history, our identity and our future. They are a treasure that must be defended.

This is a value dear to the hearts of the wise electors of Ottawa—Orléans, where about 30% of the population is French-speaking.

That is not to say that this value is not also important to the English-speaking residents of Ottawa—Orléans. When they come to settle there, they know that one of their immediate neighbours is going to be French-speaking and they regard this as an asset. They regard linguistic duality as an asset.

The government shares this way of thinking. In addition to supporting the spirit of Bill C-419, the language skills act sponsored by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, the government has slightly increased the envelope of the roadmap for official languages, which stands at over $1.1 billion for 2013-18. This represents the most far-reaching investment in official languages in our history—an increase of 40% over the previous government's plan.

The new road map will continue to support the learning of English and French as second languages and will continue its support for minority school systems so as to foster the development of citizens and communities.

In an interview with L'Express, Ottawa's French-language weekly newspaper, Marie-France Kenny, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, said:

We are happy; this will provide important leverage. For us, it's a real feat for the communities, the minister and the Prime Minister to have managed to maintain funding under the roadmap. For us, it is proof of the importance attributed to linguistic duality and the hard work that has been done in our communities for a year and a half to make our priorities known.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised to listen to Canadians before renewing the road map. He toured the country, organizing 23 round tables, in two of which I participated. He delivered the goods.

A little earlier, I was saying that job creation had to continue to be the government's priority. Small and medium-size enterprises are the engine of the Canadian economy. SMEs are the backbone of the Ottawa—Orléans economy. Businesses such as SURE Print, Lacroix Source for Sports in Orléans, the Massage and Treatment Clinic and Cuisine & Passion have come to set up shop.

It is my pleasure to recognize André Lacroix, who has owned Lacroix Source for Sports for 40 years. A terrific businessman, he is equally effective at giving back to the community, and he was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal.

These companies are very well represented by the Orléans Chamber of Commerce and its dynamic team, with its president, Dan Levesque, its board of directors and its executive director, Jamie Kwong.

In addition to reducing income taxes and cutting red tape, the economic action plan is proposing to expand and extend the hiring credit for small business for one year.

This measure, which has proven its worth in recent years, should benefit 560,000 SMEs.

Furthermore, we are going to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption from $750,000 to $800,000, and then we will index it. This positive measure will improve the return on investment in small businesses by making things easier for entrepreneurs who want to pass on the family business to the next generation of Canadians.

The fate of our soldiers and veterans is very important to me. These brave people have sacrificed so much that our country can enjoy the benefits of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We owe our freedom to them. I see them often, especially when I go to my weekly Saturday breakfast at the Royal Canadian Legion in Orléans.

Economic action plan 2013 contains measures to support these important people.

We are suggesting an investment of $1.9 billion over seven years to ensure that our disabled, ill or aging veterans and their families receive the support they need.

We are also proposing to double the reimbursement ceiling for the funeral and burial program. It is the least we can do to offer dignified funeral services for those who have lost their lives defending our country.

Families and communities are not being left behind. We are proposing to invest $1.9 billion over five years to create more affordable housing and to combat the unfortunate phenomenon of homelessness. We would also like to support families who want to adopt a child by granting them tax relief.

Economic action plan 2013 is a reasonable plan that will help our country prosper in spite of these uncertain times.

Language Skills Act

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the remarkable work done by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent in getting this bill through by bringing together all members from all parties of the House. This member often works in a non-partisan way. She is very open, very patient and she does excellent groundwork. She brings people together. She takes the time to explain things to people, but she also takes the time to listen to every concern. She is extremely present. She has shed some light on bilingualism, on the quality and the importance of bilingualism within our institution. She proves her own bilingualism every day.

I could also point out the excellent work done by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, who has been fighting for years to achieve bilingualism everywhere, in every aspect of his work. In fact, is working on Bill C-208, which would require Supreme Court judges to be bilingual. It has been a very long haul, but he is very passionate about it. He is doing a great job. That member is the official opposition critic for official languages.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the important committee work done by the hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber, our deputy critic for official languages. He gave a very passionate speech in both official languages. He is a credit to Bill C-419, which has to do with language skills.

I am very proud to rise in the House to support this important bill. There is a minority anglophone community in my riding. It is my duty as their representative to improve my knowledge and use of English. This back and forth is very enriching and allows me to take my knowledge and abilities much further.

This bill promotes both languages, but it goes even further and promotes both cultures. It requires a number of officers of Parliament to acknowledge that richness, to acknowledge the subtleties of each culture and to allow people to stand tall, no matter which language they use.

The 10 positions listed in the bill include the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada. The commissioner appeared before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. However, it is somewhat unfortunate that the Conservatives did not follow his recommendations.

He asked that the preamble be kept because it was useful. It seemed useful to us as well. This is rather unfortunate because it contained elements that were key to clarifying the importance of bilingualism. It explained why officers need to be able to speak and understand both French and English. I would like to read the preamble for you.

Whereas the Constitution provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada;

That is from the Constitution, which recognizes that both languages are equivalent and equal and recognizes two peoples. The preamble goes on to say:

Whereas English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament;

Whereas members of the Senate and the House of Commons have the right to use English or French during parliamentary debates and proceedings;

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;

These ideas are no longer officially part of Bill C-419 because the Conservatives did not want them there despite the recommendation of Canada's Commissioner of Official Languages.

The commissioner also recommended that interim appointments also be granted to officers competent in both languages. That was cut as well.

I would like to continue with the list of positions subject to this legislation: 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.

Back when I was a new MP, I had the opportunity to ask the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner some questions, and I was very happy that he could answer me in my mother tongue, given that many nuances of the English language escaped me. I was very relieved that he could help me.

In closing, I am very happy to support the bill sponsored by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, who is doing an excellent job.

I hope that all members of the House will support this bill so that it can be made law, enabling us to promote Canada's two languages, French and English, fairly and equally.

[Christine Moore, NDP, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, which was introduced by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.

This bill would require anyone appointed to the office of the 10 main officers of Parliament to understand French and English and to be able to communicate in both official languages at the time they take the job.

The positions in question are the following: the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, 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.

These positions are very important and the people who hold these offices interact regularly with parliamentarians. They do an excellent job. They keep us apprised of what is going on. For example, the Auditor General just released his latest report and we learned a lot of things.

That is why I think it is very important for these officers of Parliament to be able to communicate in both official languages.

On occasion, the general public also has to interact with these people. As we saw with the allegations of electoral fraud, I think it is important for a member of the public to be able to speak with the Chief Electoral Officer in either official language in order to discuss the problems and to make a complaint.

I think it goes without saying that anyone appointed to the positions I mentioned will have a lot of experience, will have worked in the field and will have had training. They will probably have a few degrees. This is not a job you get right out of university.

That being said, the reason I wanted to point this out is that, when a person progresses in his career, no matter what that career may be, and things are going well and he thinks that he might want to aspire to another position, it is logical to think that, at some point, he might have the opportunity to be appointed Auditor General.

If that person knows that the position requires him to be bilingual, then he has more than enough time, from the beginning of his career, to say that he is going to learn French or English right away, depending on which language he is less familiar with.

It is completely reasonable to think along those lines. If a person knows he needs to be bilingual in order to reach his future career goals, he will do his best to learn the other language. Often, the people appointed to these positions are from the public service. They have already worked in various capacities and have therefore had access to courses in the other official language. I think that that is an important point to make.

I would like to come back to the work done in committee. At report stage, a Liberal amendment was rejected and four Conservative amendments were accepted. I am sorry to see that the preamble was done away with.

The preamble reiterated the fact that the Constitution recognizes that English and French are the official languages of Canada; that English and French have equal rights and privileges as to their use in Parliament; that parliamentarians use both official languages during parliamentary debates and proceedings; and that 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 parliamentarians in both official languages.

I think that it is unfortunate that the preamble was removed. I think that all parliamentarians should be proud to stand and say that, in Canada, we are lucky to live in a unique country with two official languages and two linguistic communities that live together and that have learned to value each other.

Yes, there is sometimes conflict between the two communities, but Canada is an example of a country where two communities that are fairly different in terms of language and culture are able to live together and to be proud of who they are. Still, the Conservatives decided to remove this preamble. The preamble would have given us the chance to reiterate how proud we are of our country. I find it really sad that it was removed.

I believe that the Conservative Party is wasting an opportunity to stand up and proudly say that Canadians are proud of our language skills and proud to speak French and English, that we are proud of who we are and that it is important to put that in a bill.

In deciding to have bilingual officers of Parliament, we are taking a step in the right direction to show that, in Canada, we speak two languages and to give the reasons why we pass these types of bills. We are proud of our two communities, which are equal before the law. Instead, they decided to eliminate the preamble.

With regard to clause 2, which was amended, we originally asked that the incumbent understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter. It was decided that “without the aid of an interpreter” would be deleted. I find that unfortunate.

Members will recall that the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, said the following, which is taken from the Official Languages Act, and I found it to be appropriate.

If you say that people can use an interpreter, that indicates that the person does not have sufficient proficiency in the other official language.

I believe that it was important to keep these words to indicate what is meant by “understanding of the other official language”. If someone does not need an interpreter, it clearly shows that they are proficient in the other official language. That provides a criterion for determining whether or not the person has sufficient knowledge of the other official language. I am disappointed that the Conservatives decided to delete this clause.

It is also unfortunate that they deleted clause 3, whereby the Governor in Council could, by order, add offices to the list established in section 2. It would have been possible to add offices without necessarily having to go through the entire legislative process with a new bill to amend a bill about to be passed. The government might realize, for example, that some offices should have been on the list, or a new office could be created. No one knows what the future needs of the country may be. It is possible that other officer of Parliament positions may be created; they could have been automatically included in the bill and the law. I find it unfortunate that we are not giving ourselves some flexibility. There was no need to eliminate this clause.

Clause 4 stated that, in the event of the absence or incapacity of the incumbent of any of the offices listed in section 2 or vacancy in any of these offices, the person appointed in the interim must meet the requirements set out in section 2. In other words, the person must be bilingual even in an interim position. I regret that this clause was also deleted.

I know that Canada has an abundance of competent people with outstanding skills. I also know that there are bilingual candidates for all positions. It is not true that there are not enough; we can find them. We could have applied the same requirement to interim positions, if only out of respect for Canada's official language communities.

It is simply too bad that the requirement was deleted and that it was decided—even before the situation occurred—that it would be impossible and that we needed some flexibility. I know that Canada has a lot of competent people. Every time we conduct studies in committee, we see the expertise of Canadians. Many people have the skills and can give us the right information. This is really about not being willing and refusing to look for bilingual people. That is just too bad.

It is important to remember that a number of people supported our bill in its entirety before it was amended. For instance, Marie-France Kenny, President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada, supported it. They all said good things about the bill.

I am clearly pleased to support my colleague's bill, but, honestly, I would have much rather not seen it amended. I think the clauses that were deleted made the bill better and it is unfortunate that they were removed.

It is also unfortunate that the Conservatives missed the chance to keep the preamble and to reiterate how much they believe in a bilingual Canada and the importance of two equal French-speaking and English-speaking communities in our country.

I am proud of this country. I used to wear the flag on my shoulder when I was in the military.

I am very proud of what Canada stands for and I am always happy to say how proud I am of our country.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for the vision she conveyed through Bill C-419. She identified a flaw in our laws with respect to the importance of Canada's linguistic duality, and she came up with a bill to address the issue.

I would also like to thank the government for supporting this bill, despite dissecting it a bit. Nonetheless, what the bill clearly states is that officers of the Parliament of Canada are required to be bilingual at the time of their appointment. That is very clear and important.

This private member's bill was born out of a diplomatic miscalculation on the government's part by engaging a unilingual Auditor General.

I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Ferguson in my second week of my immersion class in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. He was starting his class. I found him to be a very nice gentleman and he has proven to be a very capable gentleman. The issue is that to serve Parliament and the Canadian public, he needs to be able to speak French and to understand it as a second language. Despite his honest attempts to do so, he is not yet at that point. This is an issue, because the government should have engaged someone at the very beginning who was able to communicate in both official languages as an agent of Parliament.

When I say both official languages, it is not a choice and it should not be a choice. Canada's character as a bilingual country was set many years ago. Many people and grassroots organizations go to great lengths to try not only to promote their language and their culture, but, in many cases, to make it survive.

We have various organizations in the Acadian community and the Franco-Canadian community that work on a daily basis trying to promote and show the importance of their culture and their language outside Quebec.

It is really difficult. At the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we often hear about the challenges facing organizations when it comes to financial support and the types of programs that are available. In western Canada, we see how important immersion schools are, but not enough teachers go to teach French there.

It is very important for the survival of French across Canada. We, as leaders in our country, have to set an example. We, as leaders in our country, in particular the government, have to set the example that both official languages are important.

It is not simply a question of the “coolness” of being able to speak two languages. It is important to the search for jobs in this country. It is important to the preservation of both our cultures, the anglophone community in Quebec and the francophone community outside Quebec. We have to be leaders by setting examples. Hiring a unilingual parliamentary agent does not send the right message.

I asked my colleague a little while earlier about the importance of our young people learning a second language. Again, it is not about the “coolness” of speaking two languages. It is about their future. It is about those young lawyers, accountants and business people who might one day hope to share their talents with this place as an auditor general, a privacy commissioner or as a higher-up in the government hierarchy. It is important to send the message that they should start learning that second language now; in other words, if they are francophone, learning English, if they are anglophone, learning French. They should study in both official languages so that as they grow and excel in their career, they are open to those opportunities to serve Canadians in both official languages.

When Bill C-419 went in it was a strong bill. It was very well thought out. Unfortunately, as I alluded to earlier, there was a bit of dissection going on, and in many cases it was hard to understand why. This bill set out to create clarity in the hiring of 10 specific agents of Parliament.

In article 2, the need to understand both official languages without the aid of an interpreter or an interpretation device was again, to be diplomatic, misconstrued as not being able to get counsel on the meaning of a word.

As an actor I spent two years at Stratford performing Shakespeare, and also did so outside of Stratford. I adore the English language. Every now and then I have to pick up a dictionary or ask somebody the meaning of a word. That is not what the intention of article 2 was. It was to make sure that when these agents of Parliament are not in a room that has simultaneous interpretation, they have the ability to go out among the members of the public and listen to their concerns in both official languages.

Article 3, which allowed for the Governor in Council to add to or adjust the list in particular ways, was simply meant as a means of expediting the creation of a new position for an agent of Parliament.

The importance of article 4, to have the interim individual able to continue the work of the agent of Parliament while looking for a permanent replacement, is paramount because it prevents that work from coming to a halt.

In conclusion, I would like to again congratulate my hon. colleague for her work. I applaud the government for supporting this bill. It is an important bill. We hope that the importance of hiring a government agent who is bilingual at the time of his or her hiring is clear.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about this bill. It seems that everyone supports it, even though the government unfortunately made some amendments to it. It is quite obvious that officers of Parliament must be bilingual. In an ideal world, we would not need a law for this. However, it seems that the Conservatives need such a law because they recently appointed a unilingual Auditor General. We therefore need a law to remind the government of its responsibilities. That law will be Bill C-419. I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for sponsoring it.

In committee, the Conservatives used their majority to make useless amendments to the bill. On behalf of his Liberal colleagues, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville voted against each of these amendments, which served to eliminate the preamble and two of the four clauses from the original bill.

Despite these amendments, we still support Bill C-419 since the most important element of the bill remained intact. The most important thing is that officers of Parliament be bilingual when they are appointed.

It is essential that the Auditor General of Canada be bilingual when he or she gets the job. The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada must also be bilingual. The Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, and the President of the Public Service Commission of Canada—all must be bilingual on the day that they are hired.

The Conservatives' amendments weakened the bilingualism requirement. However, the requirement set out in the amended version of the bill is still meaningful. It states that anyone who is appointed to these positions “must, at the time of his or her appointment, be able to speak and understand clearly both official languages”.

The Conservatives also did away with clause 3, which stated: “The Governor in Council may, by order, add offices to the list established in section 2.” That is unfortunate because, if they believed in bilingualism, they would have made it easier to expand the list. It would have been nice if the government had been able to take the initiative to add new positions to the list of those with a bilingualism requirement. However, at least we can rest assured that the government will not be able to remove any positions from the list without parliamentary approval.

The government side also removed clause 4, which pertained to interim appointments to the positions covered by Bill C-419. This clause read: “In the event of the absence or incapacity of the incumbent of any of the offices listed in section 2 or vacancy in any of these offices, the person appointed in the interim must meet the requirements set out in section 2.”

That clause was removed, undermining the clarity of the bill but, fortunately, not changing the fundamentals. Once Bill C-419 becomes law in Canada, all newly appointed officers of Parliament will have to be bilingual, whether the position is occupied by a permanent or an interim appointee.

Interim appointees will be subject to the same requirements as permanent ones. They will have to deliver the goods and fulfill all requirements of the position as set out in the law.

If the law states that bilingualism is a skill inherent to the job, that skill will always be mandatory. It cannot be optional. If the government were to make a bad decision to appoint a unilingual interim officer, it would be breaking the law and would be subject to legal action.

The Conservatives also cut the preamble to Bill C-419. They refused to say why. All they said was that the preamble was not necessary. It is not necessary, but it is useful. A preamble makes the legislator's intentions clear. In this case, the main problem with cutting the preamble is that now, nowhere does it say that the bill is about officers of Parliament.

This is what the fourth whereas said:

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;

Now that the fourth whereas is gone, nowhere in the bill does it say that the 10 positions subject to bilingualism under Bill C-419 are given to “individuals appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament”.

Since both the preamble and the fourth whereas are gone, positions not appointed by Parliament can be subject to Bill C-419.

In committee, my colleague, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, suggested adding the CEO of CBC and the president of the CRTC to the list in the bill. These two officials are not appointed by Parliament, but who would object to the notion that they should have to be bilingual? The Conservatives, apparently.

My NDP colleagues voted in favour of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville's amendment, and I thank them for that. However, the Conservatives scuttled it. Let us keep that in mind in the future. Since there is no longer a preamble, there is nothing standing in the way of adding more government-appointed positions to Bill C-419 in the future.

Let me get back to the important thing, which is that, by law, officers of Parliament must meet the following criteria.

First, they should have the ability to study matters in both official languages. This is the only way to ensure fair and credible investigations and decisions.

Second, they should be able communicate with parliamentarians who are, in many cases, unilingual. One cannot provide satisfactory service to Parliament if one can speak to some of its members only through an interpreter.

Third, they should be able not only to communicate with all Canadians, but also to listen to them and follow what they are saying. The role of officers of Parliament is not only to be competent public servants, they must also be competent communicators. They must communicate the conclusions of their research with accuracy and subtlety in both languages.

We must state and demonstrate to young Canadians that some positions with national responsibilities in this country require a mastery of both official languages. We should honour the bilingual character of our Parliament, of our country and of our future by supporting Bill C-419.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide the government's response to Bill C-419 on language skills. We signalled our intention to support the intent and the core objective of this bill. However, when this bill was studied in committee, some technical issues needed to be addressed to strengthen it as the legislative foundation for linguistic duality among the 10 positions listed in the bill.

Our approach is a practical one that demonstrates both our agreement with the spirit of the legislation and our desire to make it an effective legal foundation for something we all believe in.

Linguistic duality is one of the pillars of Canadian history, culture and democracy, and this government is determined to strengthen it in our public institutions. We believe that the individuals occupying the 10 positions listed in the bill should be proficient in both of Canada's official languages. However, there were a number of technical issues with this bill that needed to be examined more closely in committee before it could be implemented.

If the first version had been passed, persons whose appointments required the approval of the House of Commons or both chambers would have had to understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and be able to express themselves clearly in both languages at the time of their appointment. In addition, the bill provided the Governor in Council with the ability to add officers to this list. It also provided that in the case of an incumbent's absence or incapacity, the person appointed in the interim would also have to meet these requirements.

We would rather give the language skills requirement a stronger legal foundation. Let me list the reasons for the amendments that were made to the bill when it was being studied by the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

First, the preamble indicated that the bill is grounded on the principle that the 10 officers of Parliament identified therein need to communicate directly with parliamentarians in both official languages. We believe this did not take into account the constitutional right of all Canadians, including the officers listed in Bill C-419, to speak in the official language of their choice in Parliament.

Our second objection is that the bill, to be meaningful, should also specify the type of language skills required, which it did not do with sufficient clarity in its original form. This requirement, as it is currently proposed in the bill, does not distinguish between written and oral expression.

With the amendments adopted at committee, it is now more clearly laid out that candidates must understand and speak both official languages at the time of their appointment. Without specifying the type of language skills required, it would have been difficult to evaluate whether or not a candidate meets this requirement.

Third, we believe that due to the constraints the bill imposes on the selection process of senior officials, the ability to add to the list of officers should lie with Parliament rather than the Governor in Council.

Our fourth concern is that the language skills requirements would also apply to interim appointees. This could hamper the government's ability to make timely and effective interim appointments to ensure the continuity of an institution's operations.

In addition, this requirement could create a de facto language skills requirement for those people occupying other senior positions within the 10 organizations listed in the bill.

The Standing Committee on Official Languages has successfully mitigated the risks associated with these issues. We believe that the bill now has a stronger basis for the introduction of these requirements for the 10 positions listed in the bill. We are committed to promoting linguistic duality in Canada and strengthening the use of our two official languages.

We understand that linguistic duality is at the heart of our identity as a nation, and it contributes to our historical and cultural wealth. It empowers official language minority communities across the country and contributes to Canada's economic vitality. It strengthens the resilience of our federation through the provision of services in both official languages.

Indeed, linguistic duality permeates all fields of our society, and is a social, cultural and economic asset for Canadians not only at home, but also abroad. Bilingualism, for example, opens Canada to la Francophonie.

Through this international organization, Canada can help promote democratic institutions, human rights, the rule of law, peace and human security.

At the same time, we benefit from the political, cultural, scientific and other contributions made by other members. In fact, this government's long-standing commitment to bilingualism was shown in 2008 by the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013: Acting for the Future. The roadmap laid out the path to build on Canada's linguistic duality for the future with an unprecedented government-wide investment of $1.1 billion over five years.

Clearly, as we reaffirmed in the 2011 Speech from the Throne, “Canada's two official languages are an integral part of our history and give us a unique advantage in the world”. The government has not wavered from that. That is why it recently announced the Roadmap for Canada’s Official Languages 2013-2018: Education, Immigration, Communities. This new roadmap unites the efforts of about 15 departments and agencies of the Government of Canada, as well as those of our partners, to take action in these three key areas.

By recognizing that the individuals occupying the 10 positions listed in Bill C-419 should be proficient in both official languages, we are acting on our beliefs and strengthening Canada's linguistic duality for the future. Our position is consistent with the spirit of the original bill, and we want to ensure that the introduction of these language requirements has a solid basis in law.

As for appointments to the 10 positions listed in the bill, there are many relevant considerations in addition to language skills to be taken into account. These include formal education, practical experience, abilities, personal suitability, knowledge and expertise. We will continue to consider all the criteria that allow us to appoint the most suitable candidate.

We look forward to working with the members of this House to pass this landmark legislation, which will be good for Canada and all Canadians.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her work and ask her whether she believes that Bill C-419 restricts the constitutional rights of officers of Parliament. Whether she does or does not, can she explain why?

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

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise today and speak about my bill at third reading. Right from the beginning, this bill has had incredible support from all the parties, which makes me especially proud.

I would like to start right away by extending my thanks and gratitude to some hon. members who, with their support and wise counsel, helped make Bill C-419 a real success.

First, I would like to thank the member for Ottawa—Orléans for his contribution to the final version of the bill. His enthusiasm for protecting language rights is probably already well known across all the French-speaking communities in Ontario. I extend my sincere thanks to him. As he himself kindly said to me in committee,

[Member spoke in Russian, as follows:]

Bolshoi spasibo.

[Translation]

My thanks also go to the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, who all contributed in a caring, intelligent and visionary manner to this bill. The member for Winnipeg South Centre, the member for Durham, the member for Pickering—Scarborough East and the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore gave their clear support and full consideration to the bill.

The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville also expressed his strong support during his remarks on this subject. It is always reassuring when a great intellectual of his calibre unequivocally supports one's proposals. I truly appreciate that and thank him for it.

Several other government members have believed in Bill C-419 from the beginning, and I would like to remind them that their timely support did not go unnoticed. Without their good will, this bill would have died a long time ago.

Naturally, I would also like to thank the many NDP members who contributed to my bill. One person in particular deserves to be mentioned. I would like not only to thank the member for Acadie—Bathurst, but also to give him a big hug and let him know that I will be forever grateful. I can take a breather now, but his battle wages on, and I wish him all the success he deserves.

I feel fortunate to be celebrating the second anniversary of my May 2011 election to Parliament during the first hour of the third reading of my bill. Never could I have dreamed of coming so far so fast. I am very proud of that and of having been able to work so productively with all parties in the House of Commons.

The fact that Bill C-419 has reached third reading proves to Canadians that we know how to work together. Even though our political visions can be poles apart, we fully agree on certain points.

I can claim victory today because all parties collaborated for the purpose of protecting the rights of Canadians in minority language communities. What we are doing today strengthens the very foundation this country is built on. Many of us here in Canada's Parliament, along with thousands—millions, even—of Canadians, sincerely love this country's two official languages. I am one of those Canadians. My love for English in no way diminishes my attachment to my own language. Divisiveness has never arisen because of language itself, but because of political constructs relating to it.

More and more, I have come to realize that political divisions are often unhealthy. Not only are they ridiculously artificial, but they can also prevent people from thinking honestly about the problems we are facing. Today we have a rare opportunity to celebrate together. We have stepped away from the scourge of adversarial politics, and that is a good thing.

Bill C-419 has emerged from committee significantly abbreviated. Though it is now a relatively short and simple bill, it originally contained a number of different elements related to one central issue.

This core element, the list of the 10 officers of Parliament, was supported by four other elements: a preamble, an explanation of the language requirements for the 10 positions, the flexibility to allow the Governor in Council to add more positions to the list and, finally, clarification on acting positions.

These five separate elements were discussed, and only one of them remained unchanged: the list of the 10 positions in question. Fortunately, this is the most important element. Had this element been altered, it would have changed the very nature of the bill. The fact that it remained unchanged is a victory because everyone found the compromise acceptable.

I would like to explain the changes made and the reasons for them. First, the original version of Bill C-419 contained a preamble. The purpose of this preamble was to better define what is meant by an officer of Parliament. Since this category is not clearly set out in the act, we thought it would be appropriate to include a specific definition of this term. In so doing, we wanted to prevent any future doubt.

Here is the definition of an officer of Parliament that was contained in the preamble of the original version of the bill: officers of Parliament are persons appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament.

This clarification eliminated any legislative hesitation regarding the nature of the positions set out in the new law. Throughout my speech, I emphasized that this preamble was included by way of explanation and as a preventive measure.

Except that, in the end, it was not retained. This decision does not pose a problem, but it does weaken the bill. I am certain that some people do not like this grey area which has been purposely created. The decision was made not to use a clear definition of what an officer of Parliament is or is not.

In general, there was agreement that, although this category is not clearly defined, it is specific enough to not cause any harm. Thus, the preamble was deleted.

The second element on which we could not agree was a phrase in the main clause of Bill C-419. In attempting to state what we meant by a clear understanding of both official languages, we believed that it would suffice to say that the candidate must be able to understand English and French without the assistance of an interpreter.

Although the preamble and a legislative detail that we deemed to be important were eliminated, in this case the government suddenly wanted to give a definition that was as broad as possible.

First, we heard that, if we applied the letter of the law, the use of an interpreter by the incumbent of any of the 10 positions would be strictly prohibited in any circumstance.

That is obviously not the case. Requiring the incumbent to be bilingual at the time of his or her appointment does not at all mean that the person can never use the services of an interpreter. I defended the notion that it would be obvious whether or not the incumbent was bilingual from the very first words they spoke in both languages. After all, either you understand a language or you do not. You cannot get by for very long.

However, the issue of an interpreter was too unpopular. To eliminate any merit it may have had, the principal meaning of interpreter was expanded to include sign language interpreters. First of all, we did not want to hinder the candidacy of individuals with hearing loss. Only afterwards, I was accused of trying to exclude the candidacy of people who are completely deaf.

That was obviously not the objective of those six words. The reason I used that turn of phrase was mainly because it is found in the Official Languages Act in reference to the appointment of superior court justices:

Every federal court, other than the Supreme Court of Canada, has the duty to ensure that...(c) if both English and French are the languages chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand both languages without the assistance of an interpreter.

However, the member for Ottawa—Orléans was able to propose a compromise that was acceptable to everyone. He suggested that we introduce the concept of clear understanding to replace the idea of understanding without the aid of an interpreter. I would like to thank him for this wise addition, without which we would not have moved forward. There is no more mention of interpreters.

The first version of Bill C-419 would have given the Governor in Council the ability to add positions to the list in the future, as needed.

With that clause, we were hoping to make it easier for future governments to amend the law and rectify a language skills problem.

For example, it is easy to imagine that if a new officer of Parliament position were created, the government would want to add it to the list. The way the bill has been amended, Parliament alone can make that addition, not the Governor in Council. That provision was taken out.

Legislators will therefore be required to introduce a bill to add a position to the list. The NDP had no issues with allowing the Governor in Council to add positions to our list, as needed.

Lastly, we felt it was necessary to specify that those appointed to one of the 10 offices listed in Bill C-419 on an interim basis must also meet the requirements.

It could happen that a candidate appointed to a position on an interim basis could end up being permanently appointed to fulfill those duties. Requiring interim appointees to be bilingual would encourage the government to seek out qualified candidates from the start.

We were told that lack of available candidates and the urgency of the situation required extraordinary measures and, in such cases, for the common good, a unilingual person could do a fine job in the interim position.

I maintained that among 33 million people, there should be enough talented candidates who meet the language requirements of institutional bilingualism. I was accused of speculating and of not having studies to back up my blind faith in the bilingualism of elite Canadians.

I am disappointed that the clause regarding interim appointments was taken out. It weakens the bill slightly and opens the door to future problems. However, despite my reluctance, I am confident that even in the most extreme cases—although it may not be explicitly required in the bill—future governments will make every effort possible to comply with the language skill requirements, even for interim positions.

Overall, I am satisfied with the final result, even though all the satellite provisions were removed from the bill. The most controversial points of Bill C-419 were debated fairly, but were eliminated for reasons that could be described as short-sightedness. The essence of Bill C-419 remains intact: the list of the 10 officer of Parliament positions that must henceforth be bilingual to comply with the law.

On that point, I never for a moment doubted the good will of everyone who worked on my bill. Parliament is accountable to all Canadians, regardless of their language background, and respect for institutional bilingualism remains one of the fundamental agreements that exists between all Canadians for the future.

Adding this list of 10 positions to the legislation will only strengthen our union. We just added another building block to the structure of our agreement. I was pleased to see how solicitous the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages were in order to come to an agreement.

As a final point, I would like to look ahead to our shared future. What will the Parliament of Canada look like in 2113? That depends on Canadians and on the direction they would like to take. The ground beneath our feet makes up the second-largest country in the world, one that is blessed not only with abundant natural resources, but also tremendous human potential. Our bilingualism is one of those assets. It enables us to be at the forefront of several cultural movements at once. We must not waste our cultural treasures.

If I had just one wish for 2113, it would be that Canada's aboriginal peoples come and join us in the House with the concentrated strength of a cultural and linguistic renaissance. I truly hope that 100 years from now, the languages that emerged from this country's land are more vibrant than ever and are heard in this Parliament every day, in what will truly be a Parliament for all Canadians.

That is why I will conclude by thanking the House in Huron, the language of my riding.

[Member spoke in Huron as follows:]

Tia:wenk.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Official Languages

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

In accordance with its order of reference of Wednesday, February 27, the committee has considered Bill C-419, an act respecting language skills, and agreed on Thursday, April 18, to report the bill with amendments.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

In the last meeting, I think it was Mr. Chisu who had asked why we need a preamble. There are preambles in other parts of the language act, so why do we need one here?

I think it's important to have this preamble to reiterate and to encapsulate what this bill is supposed to be about. To take a preamble from another bill and try to apply it, or to take the intention of another bill or another part of the act and apply it to this.... Never mind the legal consequences that might arise, two different parts of the act have two different meanings.

I think this reiterates the importance of this bill and why this bill was brought forward in the first place. It reiterates—or it should—this committee's stance and the government's stance on linguistic duality and the importance of having, in particular, these designated positions as agents of Parliament, which is what this bill is about.

I think we run into the same problem we had prior to this bill, where assumptions are made that it makes sense that this should happen or it makes sense for that to happen. We saw with the engagement of a unilingual auditor general that common sense doesn't always prevail.

This is a guideline. This is a means of saying not only to this government but to future governments that this is the intent of both this bill and the language act. This is to remind us and help us get to a point where we don't make that same mistake again. I think it's our job as legislators to do that, to think forward in that respect. I think the preamble does outline the purpose and give a wider scope or a wider understanding of what the purpose of Bill C-419 is.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to the 75th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on this Thursday, April 18, 2013.

We are here pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 27, 2013 to consider Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills.

Right now, we're in clause-by-clause consideration and we will begin where we left off last meeting, which is in debate on clause 4.

I will give the floor to Monsieur Godin.

(On clause 4—Interim appointment)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We now resume our meeting, which is public.

We will proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-419.

On the orders of the day, you will see under the section “Clause-by-Clause Consideration”, the order in which we will consider this bill.

What we will do as a committee is begin with the consideration of clause 2, then proceed to clauses 3 and 4, then to the short title, then to the preamble, and then to the full title. Then we'll adopt three routine motions to report the bill back to the House. We'll begin with clause 2. The committee has the option with each of the clauses to carry it unamended, to negative the clause, in other words, to strike the clause, or to present an amendment, which we can then debate.

(On clause 2—Requirements)

I understand there are a number of amendments that are going to be proposed, so I'll give the floor to Mr. Gourde for the first amendment.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much.

First of all, I too am going to reiterate my appreciation of the comments you made on the preamble issue. What we see here is that it really helps us reassert principles, the fundamental values of this country and the importance of bilingualism. That has all been disregarded in the past. As you said so well, you have not yet heard any valid arguments in favour of striking the preamble. I will not ask you to compromise yourself on that point, but personally, if we wanted to remove it, I would see no other reason for it than a lack of political will to strengthen bilingualism in Canada.

Which brings me to my question. At our last meeting, an objection was raised to the effect that Bill C-419 did not reflect the constitutional right of the incumbents of agent of Parliament offices to address Parliament in the official language of their choice. Can you comment on that interpretation of the bill? I do not view the matter in that light and I would like to hear your opinion on the subject.

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

Good afternoon. I found your presentation very interesting. You said: "Bill C-419, which was put forward by the NDP MP for Louis-Saint-Laurent, is to the point and unequivocal."

I have been hearing comments that cast doubt on certain parts of the bill since we started discussing it. I personally think that the bill is very well balanced and that the preamble is necessary. The preamble enables us to understand why these people appear on this list.

In your presentation, however, you talked about parliamentarians' privilege or prerogative to have a private conversation with agents of Parliament. I want to make the connection between that prerogative and the question whether it is necessary to have an interpreter. As a parliamentarian, I want to be able to have a private conversation with the Auditor General or the people on that list without needing an interpreter. Is that the sense of what you are saying?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

In essence, we're basically saying that Bill C-419 helps to clarify the responsibilities of the government as far as these agents of Parliament are concerned, that their language proficiency should be such that they could go outside their office and be able to have a conversation without having somebody interpret their conversation in the field, which is what clause 2 alludes to. Would you say that would be a fair interpretation?

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I was just asking...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...rights and freedoms. It is so evident in this case that it seems to obviate the need to have something that is reinforcing something which everybody ought to know.

I have another question. Which statutes, policies, and directives will be affected by Bill C-419? Let's say that the bill is accepted. What other policies and what other repercussions will we have in other legislation?

[Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, and honourable members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I'd like to express my thanks for your having me here today and allowing me to speak by video conference. As the Chair said, I'm currently in Winnipeg meeting with Manitoba's francophone community and visiting the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

I appreciate the steps you are taking to adapt our democratic processes to new technologies, especially when those technologies better serve the needs of federal institutions and result in cost savings for Canadian taxpayers.

I am here with Johane Tremblay, General Counsel. Ghislaine Charlebois, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance, and Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications, are there with you in Ottawa.

I am addressing you today not only as Commissioner of Official Languages, but also as an agent of Parliament.

Bill C-419, which was put forward by the New Democratic MP for Louis-Saint-Laurent, is to the point and unequivocal. Its purpose is to ensure that persons whose appointment requires the approval by resolution of the Senate, House of Commons, or both Houses of Parliament, can understand and express themselves clearly in both official languages without the aid of an interpreter from the moment they are appointed.

It is an important bill for the future of Canada's Iinguistic duality. I therefore support it unconditionally.

Everyone to whom this bill applies—with the exception of two individuals—is an agent of Parliament. If I may, I will use the expression "agents of Parliament" to refer to the 10 persons covered by the bill to keep things simple.

As you are aware, the controversy surrounding the high-profile appointment of a unilingual anglophone to the position of Auditor General of Canada resonated strongly both with a segment of Canadian public opinion and with the parliamentary committees responsible for reviewing it. Following the appointment, my office received 43 complaints and has conducted an investigation.

I determined that the Privy Council Office had not met its obligations under part VII of the Official Languages Act with respect to the Auditor General's appointment process because it failed to take into account the language requirements under subsection 24(3) of the act, the spirit of parts IV, V, and VII of the act and the specific nature of the roles of agents of Parliament.

Agents of Parliament exert national and sometimes even international influence. They are responsible for monitoring how federal institutions are living up to the obligations that parliamentarians have imposed on them to ensure the integrity of our democratic system. Several of them serve as ombudsmen for the public and as independent and impartial critics of government action for both parliamentarians and the public.

Their job is to provide timely notification of any actual or perceived infringements of the values and rights they are required to protect on behalf of all Canadians. They must report the findings of their work not only to parliamentarians, by publicly tabling their reports and appearing before parliamentary committees, but also to the public through news conferences and media interviews.

Consequently, their office and their public presence have become more visible in recent years. Their interventions thus have a greater impact.

The role played by agents of Parliament is changing. The requirements for independence associated with our positions enable us to carry out the social mission entrusted to us with all the credibility and authority that Canadians expect. As incumbents of these positions, we must demonstrate a high degree of leadership, influence, visibility, and transparency. As Madame Latendresse said in the House of Commons, the presence of unilingual elected MPs in the House is perfectly normal, and just as the government must adapt to the needs of Canadians, Parliament must adapt to the needs of elected MPs, regardless of which official language they use.

Members of Parliament expect—and rightly so—to be able to engage in private conversations with agents of Parliament, and to be understood. These agents must understand and express themselves clearly in both official languages without the aid of a translator or interpreter. Proficiency in French and English is therefore an essential appointment criterion.

This bill is consistent with my own recommendations to the Privy Council Office. The latter must state loudly and clearly that linguistic qualifications deemed to be essential for candidates should not be seen merely as assets.

Accordingly, candidates will be able to take steps to learn their second language in advance. This will also encourage universities to do more in terms of offering second-language programs to students. Indeed, I made a recommendation to the government along those lines in my 2011-12 annual report.

All Canadians—anglophones and francophones—expect senior officials who have to communicate with parliamentarians and Canadians across the country to be bilingual. That was also the position taken by several English-Ianguage dailies during the public debate following the Auditor General's appointment.

During my term of office, I have often said that proficiency in French and English is an essential leadership criteria. The ability of federal institutions to operate efficiently, fulfill their obligations with regard to their employees and the public, and to reflect contemporary Canadian values across the country and abroad depends in good part on the language skills of their leaders.

Furthermore, at the beginning of 2013, my office launched a study to determine how the Privy Council Office establishes the language qualifications for positions whose incumbents are appointed by the Governor in Council. I would be delighted to share the findings with you once the study has been completed.

As Madame Latendresse said, agents of Parliament “have a clear mandate: to uphold, promote and monitor integrity. They have the right to know everything, to ask anything and to understand everything that is happening within their jurisdictions.”

It is critical that we, as agents of Parliament, have the language skills to understand and express ourselves in both official languages without the aid of a translator or interpreter.

Agents of Parliament must demonstrate exemplary leadership. The time when elected MPs had to adapt to the unilingualism of Parliament without citizens questioning the credibility of their government is long gone.

Thank you for your attention. I would now like to use the remaining time to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to the 74^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on this Tuesday, April 16, 2013.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, February 27, 2013, we are here to study Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills.

Over the next hour, we will be hearing from Mr. Fraser and Ms. Tremblay from Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Also in front of us today are Madame Charlebois and Monsieur Giguère of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in Ottawa.

Welcome to all four witnesses.

Before I begin with an opening statement from Mr. Fraser, I understand that Monsieur Godin has a point of order to raise.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

We need to adopt a budget for the study of Bill C-419.

You have a projected budget in front of you in the amount of $3,900.

Mr. O'Toole.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Thank you very much to the witnesses for appearing in front of the committee.

I would like to ask you a question about Bill C-419. What, in your opinion, is the necessity of introducing this bill? It should be something natural in our country. We are a bilingual country. Why do we need additional bills when we have these rights in the Constitution and so on?

Maybe you could tell me why, in your opinion, this bill needed to be introduced, and it is a good one; I'm not telling you that it's not a good one.

[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.

[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.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Exactly. The purpose of this bill is to promote bilingualism and show how important it is. Why limit ourselves? On the contrary, we hope that this will snowball. We are seeing that bilingualism is absolutely necessary for an increasing number of positions.

I have one last quick question because I want to leave time for my colleague, Mr. Benskin.

We heard a few objections that Bill C-419 does not take into account the constitutional right of all Canadians and all parliamentarians to address Parliament in the official language of their choice. Unless I'm mistaken, and perhaps you can explain this to me, Bill C-419 ensures that all Canadians and parliamentarians will be served in the language of their choice. Someone who is an officer of Parliament will be able to decide ahead of time what language he or she wants to use for their presentation, but we want to make sure that the person will be able to answer questions and interact with people in the language of the citizens' or parliamentarians' choice. That's the purpose of the bill, isn't it?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Latendresse for her presentation on Bill C-419.

Ms. Latendresse, I would like to look at a few of the clauses in the bill to see how far we can go with it. My other colleagues also have some questions.

The preamble of Bill C-419 reads as follows:

Whereas the Constitution provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada;

Whereas English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament;

Whereas members of the Senate and the House of Commons have the right to use English or French during parliamentary debates and proceedings;

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;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Why did you include that preamble in the bill?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am very happy to be here today. Of course, it is a bit unusual to be at this end of the table, but I am very pleased to be able to tell you about my bill.

First of all, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Official Languages for the opportunity to clarify my reasons behind Bill C-419 and the impact of the bill on our Parliament.

The unanimous support for this bill at second reading shows that we know how to work together for all Canadians. Bill C-419 is very much in line with the decisions made over the years by various governments to make the Parliament of Canada a bilingual institution.

Although Canada's linguistic duality has caused in the past and still continues to occasionally cause small hitches, it remains one of the main assets of the unshakeable political agreement between all Canadians.

Bill C-419 is one more step in the right direction toward harmony between the two linguistic groups, which we have been trying to establish for over 40 years.

It is with great pride that I bring this one stone to contribute to the consolidation of this great House that we are building together. The Parliament of Canada functions in both official languages. This means that Parliament, as an institution representing the people of Canada, adapts to Canadians and to the people they elect to represent them in the House, the MPs.

Officers of Parliament are an integral part of the great parliamentary machinery and must meet the criteria set out for Parliament. In a bilingual Parliament, bilingualism is an essential skill for those who are part of the inner workings. That is the basic premise of the whole spirit of Bill C-419.

In early November of 2011, the Conservative government nominated New Brunswick native Michael Ferguson to the position of Auditor General of Canada. To everyone's surprise, and furthermore in breach of tradition, it surfaced immediately that Mr. Ferguson was not bilingual, that is to say, he had neither passive nor active skill in one of Canada's two official languages.

I would like to remind the committee that, when the government posted the competition notice, it was clearly indicated that proficiency in both of Canada's official languages was a prerequisite. Bill C-419 would solve the problem that was created by making bilingualism an essential skill for officers of Parliament under the law.

The government has apologized for this unfortunate faux pas, and it is my opinion that the apology was heartfelt. In the long process of making Parliament work for Canadians, tiny glitches are to be expected. They serve a precise purpose, teaching us to learn from our mistakes so that we can forge forward on ground that will be both firmer and better marked.

In recent months I have travelled across Canada to meet with the various actors involved with promoting the rights of Canadians living in linguistic minority environments. I have met with wonderful people in Moncton, St. Boniface, and other places. Every last one of them understood the bilingualism of Parliament to be a given. Their support for Bill C-419 was overwhelmingly enthusiastic.

When I started working on this bill, I had to consider several angles to this situation. As everyone here can easily testify, when language becomes a political issue, emotions quicken. Language lies so close to identity in the human heart that extra efforts are necessary to master oneself when a slight is perceived, be it genuine or imaginary. Sensibilities are so easily hurt that every last word must be chosen carefully.

Among the factors that contributed to the direction of my work on this bill, one factor kept coming back to me and I felt it was more significant than all the others. I remembered the outstanding work of former Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

She was fully bilingual and was able to understand everything without the help of an interpreter. When she was digging deeper into the scandal whose epicentre was in Quebec, if she had needed things to be translated all the time, I think that would have had a negative impact on her work.

Imagine for a second what it would be like if the Auditor General of Canada did not understand a word of English. How much would his work slow down if he relied on interpretation at every stage? Such a thing is inconceivable because it is so absurd.

The institution of the Parliament of Canada belongs to Canadians and, as a mirror of our democratic will, it must reflect our country and its linguistic duality. Everyone agrees on that. We now have an opportunity to take our decision one step further. That was my intention with Bill C-419.

To conclude, I believe that honourable committee members have already understood the positive impact of this bill for the furthering of our goals as a country.

I look forward to hearing any questions this committee may wish to ask.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that last Wednesday I saw the vast majority of my colleagues rise in the House to support my private member's bill, Bill C-419, calling for bilingualism for officers of Parliament.

This bill is an important way for elected members of Parliament to show that they want to maintain institutional bilingualism. By supporting this measure, we have helped make the Parliament of Canada a fairer and more representative institution.

This is a huge victory for all official language minority communities.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the enthusiasm of the communities of Moncton and Dieppe, in Acadia, and Saint-Boniface, in Manitoba, where I have seen first-hand the strong attachment to the French language.

I am especially pleased that we are able to work together beyond ideological differences for the good of our country. It is with co-operation and good faith that we will succeed in strengthening Canada's official languages from coast to coast to coast.

Thank you to all those who supported Bill C-419. I hope that my bill will keep moving in this direction in the House.

The House resumed from February 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-419 on the bilingualism of officers of Parliament will be put to a vote this evening.

It is unfortunate that the Conservatives forgot the parliamentary tradition of appointing bilingual officers of Parliament and that the NDP was forced to remind them of it with a bill.

However, they are not the only ones to have lost their way. Auditor General Kenneth Dye, who was appointed by Pierre Elliot Trudeau, did not speak a word of French.

Now that the Prime Minister has acknowledged that appointing unilingual officers of Parliament is a mistake, can the Conservatives assure us that they will not prevent Bill C-419 from going to committee?

Language Skills Act

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some days it does a body good to rise in the House, and today is one of those days. It is rare to feel this sense of optimism and excitement that leads us to believe that we are close to a broad consensus that would finally allow us to move forward on an issue that should have been resolved ages ago. Better late than never.

I am therefore pleased to speak about a common-sense bill.

In fact, one has to wonder why we are still discussing such a bill in a country that recognizes two official languages.

However, given the growing likelihood that many members of the government and the other opposition parties will get behind this proposal, I would like to talk more about the areas that unite us rather than those that divide us so that this bill can be passed.

In passing, I would like to commend the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst who, long before I arrived in this chamber, had already been fighting for years for the House to treat this country's anglophones and francophones equally.

I would also like to sincerely thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent who, through her bill, is strengthening the rights of francophones in every province and territory. Passing this bill will further strengthen francophone communities.

So, what does this bill say? Since the key message of the bill is contained in just a few short lines, I would like to read it for the benefit of all those who are watching these proceedings via CPAC or elsewhere.

The bill's short title is the Language Skills Act. In my opinion, it could not be any clearer.

The bill simply states:

2. Any person appointed to any of the following offices must, at the time of his or her appointment, be able to understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and to express himself or herself clearly in both official languages...

I will spare hon. members the rest since the list of the agents of Parliament that should have these skills has already been read out by many of the other speakers.

Once it has been established that Canada has two official languages, everything else should just fall into place naturally.

First, the same level of service should be provided to both language communities since the Constitution protects that right.

Second, people whose appointment is approved by resolution of the Senate, House of Commons or both houses must be able to communicate with parliamentarians in both official languages.

Third, French and English must have equality of status as to their use in all institutions of Parliament.

Equality of use highlights the idea behind the original wording that candidates must have the language abilities before they are appointed to be an officer of Parliament. It seems obvious to me that a unilingual anglophone or francophone, even with the best intentions in the world, will not be able to provide equal service in both languages before learning the second language, something that can often take years.

There is a glaring inconsistency between the services offered to one language community over the other. As I mentioned earlier, in the past, more often than not, it has been francophone communities that end up losing out when the principle of official language equality is twisted.

I have been talking about principles since the beginning of my speech because prejudices in everyday life can become quite significant.

So what kind of service would a Canadian receive if he or she contacted the information commissioner, the privacy commissioner, the chief electoral officer or the auditor general if that government official spoke only the language that the Canadian did not speak?

It is easy to picture the fruitless discussion that would take place, despite the goodwill of the participants. That simple example illustrates the need to support Bill C-419, which was introduced by my colleague.

The entire francophone community is watching the members from every party to ensure that we address this issue once and for all and do not try to hide behind excuses or half-measures.

In his preliminary report on the investigation that resulted from the complaint filed by the member for Acadie—Bathurst, the Commissioner of Official Languages—who is bilingual, thankfully—concluded that the Privy Council Office failed to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act when it appointed Mr. Ferguson as Auditor General.

As I said earlier, this bill is vital to all of Canada's francophone communities. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention that Bill C-419 on bilingual officers of the House, Bill C-315, which was designed to recognize the language rights of Quebec workers employed by businesses under federal jurisdiction, and the bill to recognize Quebec's political weight within the federation are all opportunities to recognize the Quebec nation. There was political will to recognize the Quebec nation within Canada, but there has not been any political will to grant the rights that should be part of that recognition.

Unanimity is a rare event in this House, I agree, but I am asking the few members not yet convinced of the rightness of this bill to try to walk, from now until the day of the vote, if only for a week, or at least a day, in the shoes of a Canadian living in an official language minority situation. If they do not have the good fortune to be bilingual, let them ask to be answered in the official language they do not know. They will quickly discover what lies behind the drafting of this bill.

The goal is not to make all Canadians bilingual, although such a dream can be a fine thing, and such an accomplishment is undeniably an advantage in the international world we now live in. The goal of this bill, rather, is to leave no one behind because of a communication problem arising from ignorance of an official language on the part of an officer of Parliament. It is a question of job skills and requirements.

I must therefore insist: let us never again be told that out of 34 million Canadians across this country, we cannot find a Canadian man or woman who is both bilingual and qualified for the job we are trying to fill. Bilingualism, after all, is an integral part of the skills or qualifications such a person should have.

Our language is much more than a work instrument; it is also a part of our identity. If Canada has chosen to recognize two official languages, for reasons that are historically highly defensible, it should now ensure consistency in its decisions and acquire the means to realize its goals.

The NDP has always been a fervent defender of the official languages in the public realm, and this bill is a conclusive example. We will fight relentlessly for every Canadian man and woman to be able to receive services and interact with officers of Parliament in the official language of their choice. We will soon have an opportunity to send a clear message to all Canadians by voting in favour of Bill C-419.

I implore parliamentarians in all parties in this House, let us not miss this historic opportunity. I will close by thanking all of my colleagues in this House who, in their heart and soul, have already decided to support the bill. I would suggest most humbly to those who still have doubts to drop by the Standing Committee on Official Languages. There they will definitely find food for thought and colleagues who ask nothing better than to discuss with them the wisdom of this measure.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to provide the government's response to Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills.

As you know, this bill was introduced by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent nine months ago. I would like to commend and congratulate him. I support the intent and the core objective of this bill, and the government that I support in this place will support it also.

However, there are some technical issues that need to be addressed to strengthen it as the legislative foundation for linguistic duality among the 10 positions listed in the bill.

Our approach is a practical one that demonstrates both our agreement with the spirit of the legislation and our desire to make it an effective legal foundation for something we all believe in.

Linguistic duality is one of the pillars of Canadian history, culture and democracy, and this government is determined to strengthen it in our public institutions. We believe that the individuals occupying the 10 positions listed in the bill should be proficient in both of Canada’s official languages.

However, there are a number of technical issues with this bill that need to be examined more closely in committee before it can be implemented. If passed as currently drafted, the bill would require that persons whose appointments require the approval of the Commons or the other place or both chambers must, at the time of their appointment, understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and be able to express themselves clearly in both languages.

In addition, the bill provides the Governor in Council with the ability to add officers to this list.

It also provides that in the case of an incumbent's absence or incapacity, the person appointed in the interim would also have to meet these requirements.

We would rather give the language-skills requirement a stronger legal foundation.

Let me provide our objections to the bill as it stands.

First, the preamble indicates that the bill is grounded on the principle that the 10 officers of Parliament identified herein need to communicate directly with parliamentarians in both official languages. We believe this does not take into account the constitutional right of all Canadians, including the officers listed in this bill, to speak in the official language of their choice in Parliament.

Our second objection is that the bill, to be meaningful, should also specify the type of language skills required, which it does not do now with sufficient clarity. This requirement, as it is currently proposed in the bill, does not distinguish between written and oral expression. Without specifying the type of language skills required, it would be difficult to evaluate whether or not a candidate meets this requirement.

Third, we believe that due to the constraints the bill imposes on the selection process of senior officials, the ability to add to the list of officers should lie with Parliament rather than the Governor in Council.

Our fourth concern is that the language-skills requirements would also apply to interim appointees.

This could hamper the government's ability to make timely and effective interim appointments to ensure the continuity of an institution's operations. In addition, this requirement could create a de facto language skills requirement for those people occupying other senior positions within the 10 organizations listed in the bill.

When this bill goes to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the committee will need to examine how to mitigate the risks associated with these issues. We believe that the bill needs a stronger basis for the introduction of these requirements for the 10 positions listed in the bill.

We are committed to promoting linguistic duality in Canada and strengthening the use of our two official languages. We understand that linguistic duality is at the heart of our identity as a nation, and it contributes to our historical and cultural wealth. It empowers official language minority communities across the country and contributes to Canada’s economic vitality.

It strengthens the resilience of our federation through the provision of services in both official languages.

Indeed, linguistic duality permeates all fields of our society, and is a social, cultural and economic asset for Canadians not only at home, but also abroad. Bilingualism, for example, opens Canada to la Francophonie.

Through this international organization, Canada promotes fundamental Canadian values, such as freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

At the same time, we benefit from the political, cultural, scientific and other contributions made by other members.

In fact, this government’s long-standing commitment to bilingualism was shown in 2008 by the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality 2008-2013: Acting for the Future.

The roadmap laid out the path to build on Canada's linguistic duality for the future with an unprecedented government-wide investment of $1.1 billion over five years.

This investment represents a 40% increase over the previous roadmap and is proof of our government’s commitment to Canada’s official languages.

Clearly, as we reaffirmed in the 2010 Speech from the Throne, Canada's two official languages are an integral part of our history and give us a unique advantage in the world. The government has not wavered from that.

By recognizing that the individuals occupying the 10 positions listed in the bill should be proficient in both official languages, we are acting on our beliefs and strengthening Canada’s linguistic duality for the future.

Our position is consistent with the spirit of the bill, and we want to ensure that the introduction of these language requirements has a solid basis in law.

As for the appointment of the 10 positions listed in the bill, there are many relevant considerations in addition to language skills to be taken into account. These include formal education, practical experience, abilities, personal suitability, knowledge and expertise. We will continue to consider all the criteria that allow us to appoint the most suitable candidate.

We look forward to working with the members of this house to pass this landmark legislation, which will be good for Canada and all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, this evening I have the great pleasure of taking part in the debate on Bill C-419, introduced by my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, whom I would like to thank for her work. It is an honour to speak today.

Bill C-419 deals with officers of Parliament: 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. These are officers of Parliament who report to Parliament, to parliamentarians of all political parties.

When we think about the case that triggered all of this, the people who know me know that I had introduced a bill about justices of the Supreme Court of Canada. I strongly believe that in a country that has been recognized as bilingual for 40 years, the judges of the highest court should be bilingual. They are judges who will be judging Canadians. So it starts at the top. It cannot start at the bottom. The topic tonight is not Supreme Court judges, it is officers of Parliament.

The invitation for applications to replace the auditor general was published in the October 2 issue of the Canada Gazette. The notice said that proficiency in both official languages was essential. How is it, when proficiency in both languages is essential, that we suddenly find ourselves with a person who is not bilingual?

I want to be sure that Canadians understand that I am not saying that an anglophone or a francophone should have the position. What I am saying is that the person must be bilingual. Pardon my language, but frankly, I don’t give a damn who gets the position. I just want the person who does to be bilingual. As Antonine Maillet once said, we do not want all the anglophones to become francophones or all the francophones to become anglophones. What we want is for service to be provided in both official languages. This is a question of respect.

Earlier, I listened as my Conservative colleague listed all the good things his party has done when it comes to the Roadmap for Canada’s Linguistic Duality. For example, the Conservatives did a national tour last year. What he did not say, however, is that a complaint had to be filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages, and that the Commissioner upheld our complaint. The Conservatives would have been in violation of the law if they did not do their tour. They wanted the Standing Committee on Official Languages to do their work for them.

In part VII of the Official Languages Act, section 41 is very clear: the government must consult the communities before making changes.

After the official opposition, the NDP, lodged a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages, the government suddenly decided to embark on a national tour.

Last October, in a statement to the House, the Conservatives maintained that they had complied with the legislation. However, on October 2, 2010, the name of the new auditor general was announced. They claim to respect both official languages, but they hired someone who was unilingual. Each time the government does something like this, instead of bringing people together, it drives a wedge between them. Rather than unite our country, it divides it.

An important public discussion is now under way. People are telling us that it is not up to us to tell them who can fill certain positions. They are wondering if it means an anglophone cannot get the job, or whether a francophone is ineligible. Come on. There should be no room for this kind of debate in a country like ours. If we acknowledge that there are two official languages, then we need to recognize and respect them both.

Prior to the 2011 election, we embarked on a tour that cost taxpayers $100,000. While this government likes to say that it is careful about how it spends taxpayers’ money, it spent over $100,000 travelling to Canada’s north, to Yellowknife and Whitehorse. We went back to these communities. After the election, we argued that the researchers, clerks and other people who attended the hearings along with us could write up what the francophones who appeared before us in Yellowknife and Whitehorse said. However, the government said that this was not possible because there had been an election.

Yet, when this same government was returned to office with a majority, it was unwilling to refer the bills to committee because we had been debating them since 2006. It was unwilling to have its bills examined in committee. Yet it refused to release our study and table it in the House, even though $100,000 was spent consulting francophones.

We conducted a study of new immigrants to Canada to help communities and regions. In Acadia, for example, we said that if the government ever sought to attract immigrants to New Brunswick, we would like them to be francophones who would contribute to the growth of our communities and ensure the survival of our culture and language. We did a wonderful study. Some Conservative MPs had even recommended that such a study be done. After the election, the government rejected it. We tabled some motions, but the Conservatives voted them down in committee.

Today, they want to take the credit for respecting both official languages. Is it not enough to appoint unilingual judges to the Supreme Court and a unilingual auditor general? This is precisely what the government has done. Today the Prime Minister is admitting his error. At least someone is willing to own up to his mistakes. I do not often give him credit, but I will in this case. He is saying that officers of Parliament must now be bilingual.

It is not enough to have appointed someone unilingual. In 2010, during a minority government, most parliamentarians voted against the appointment of the auditor general. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Ferguson. This had nothing to do with the person himself, but involved the principle of having someone bilingual. It is not the auditor who does the calculations and checks the figures. That is done by a team of professionals. The auditor is the spokesperson who speaks in public.

Imagine if the government appointed a francophone who could not speak a word of English. When he issued his report to the nation, the entire speech would be in French and the English-language media would be unable to convey it. Imagine such a situation. I am just asking you to think about it.

If the government respected both official languages, it would stop making mistakes like this—mistakes it has acknowledged—and we would have a finer country. If it could recognize our two peoples, or three if you include the aboriginal peoples, we would be one of the finest countries in the world. In some countries, they speak five or six languages, and here in Canada, we are still squabbling over two. How sad.

Everyone here in Parliament wants to work hard for this nation and build the economy throughout the country. All I am asking, from the bottom of my heart, is for the government to recognize our two peoples—not blindly, and without making waves as it has done—and to respect both languages. I would not want a francophone to be appointed to such a position if he did not speak English. I would be against the appointment, and I would say so publicly. Anglophones are entitled to the same services as francophones.

In this respect, I am proud that the government supports this bill, and I am proud of my colleague for introducing it.

I now want the bill to go to third reading, so that we can be done with it once and for all. I also want respect for both official languages to be established in Canada, once and for all.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House, not only to talk about Bill C-419, but also to restate the support of the Liberal caucus and to congratulate the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I share her joy in the fact that her beautiful riding will continue to be called Louis-Saint-Laurent. It was good news that we received yesterday.

The bill provides that persons whose appointment requires the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament, must understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and be able to express themselves clearly in both official languages.

Of course, the Liberal caucus supports the bill. For some time now, all officers of Parliament have been bilingual, and rightly so. The successful applicant must not only demonstrate a grasp of the complexities and nuances of national issues, but she or he must also have the ability to study matters in both official languages.

This is the only way to ensure fair and credible investigations and decisions.

Moreover, these officers of Parliament must be able to communicate with parliamentarians, who are in many cases unilingual. You cannot provide satisfactory service to Parliament if you can speak to some of its members only through an interpreter. These officers of Parliament must also be able not only to communicate with all Canadians, but also to listen to them and follow what they are saying.

The role of officers of Parliament is not only to be competent public servants: they must also be competent communicators. They must communicate the conclusions of their research with accuracy and subtlety in both languages. Ideally, they should even be able to detect errors that even the most competent translators miss: errors that sometimes completely distort the message in one language as compared with the other.

There is another consideration to be borne in mind. If the head is not bilingual, there is a good chance that the body will not be either. If the Auditor General does not understand French, let us have no illusions: almost everything will be done in English in the Office of the Auditor General. This sends the wrong message to young Canadians.

On the contrary, we must state and demonstrate to young Canadians that some positions with national responsibilities in this country require a mastery of both official languages. Moreover, those languages are international languages, and provide an excellent window on the world. The truth is that Canada is fortunate to have two official languages that are international languages, and provide access to an entire cultural universe. Let us therefore do everything we can to promote this splendid asset we possess, instead of trying to weaken it.

The reason this bill is before us today is that the government made the mistake of appointing a unilingual auditor general. The media tell us that the Prime Minister has acknowledged it was a mistake. Well, it was so a mistake.

In October 2011, the Liberal Party publicly opposed the appointment of a unilingual auditor general because he did not meet the job description of the auditor general, regarding proficiency in both official languages.

When the Prime Minister wrote a letter to opposition parties on August 31, 2011, making his decision known that he was appointing a unilingual as auditor general, the Liberal Party put the request in for further study in committee. However, this request was not acknowledged by the government.

I hear some of our Conservative colleagues express a concern that the requirement for bilingualism may trump that of competence. However, the point is that bilingualism is indeed one of the essential competences for the job.

I would ask the following question of my colleagues who are hesitating. Can they imagine one of these officers being unable to understand English? Which one? Would it be the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and that would be nice for anglo Quebeckers, by the way, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, or the President of the Public Service Commission of Canada?

Which one would they be okay with if she or he would not understand English? Would they be satisfied if this unilingual adult of, let us say, 40, 50, or 60 years old, were to say not to worry, that he or she would learn it over the next months or over a couple of years? Or would they take that as an insult and complete nonsense?

Imagine all the hours spent every day to learn English when, as a top parliamentary officer, he or she has on his or her shoulders the pressing and heavy responsibility to run an office, to prepare the next elections, to assess the last estimates, to understand the needs of the anglophone minority in Quebec, to protect privacy rights in Canada, rights to information in Canada and to protect ethics and good governance in general. These are tremendous responsibilities. We want these competent people on the job right away, full time.

The government has stated that it supports the primary goal of this bill. There is reason to fear that this support in principle may not be translated into genuine support. The government remains evasive. We have just heard our colleague talking about everything except the bill. The government talks about some technical problems to be resolved, yet the bill is very simple. We have to keep an open mind, I agree. If there are good amendments to be made, they must be considered. At the same time, however, we must be sure that the government is in earnest in this matter. It is in the government’s interest to support this bill, otherwise it may find itself in court.

The appointment of a unilingual officer of Parliament has earned it a stream of complaints and a strong rebuke from the Commissioner of Official Languages. Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais has initiated a court proceeding, arguing that the Official Languages Act, which is a quasi-constitutional statute, must be respected.

Rather than force this matter into the courts, why not do the right thing here in Parliament, among the representatives of the people, and honour the bilingual character of our Parliament and our country by supporting Bill C-419?

[Andrew Saxton, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and for Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to stand in this place today to speak to the government's response to Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills.

The Government of Canada believes that occupants of the 10 positions listed in the bill, persons whose appointment requires parliamentary approval, should be proficient in both official languages. We therefore support the intent of the core provision of Bill C-419. There are, however, a number of technical issues in the bill that need to be addressed before it can be implemented.

Our recognition that going forward, occupants of the 10 positions listed in the bill should be proficient in both official languages is a major step forward in our continuing support for Canada's linguistic duality. Members will recall that our government reaffirmed in the 2010 Speech from the Throne that Canada's two official languages are an integral part of our history and give us a unique advantage in the world.

The official languages are central to our identity and contribute to our historical and cultural wealth. Canada's linguistic duality is part of every sphere of our society and is without a doubt a social, cultural and economic asset for Canadians at home and abroad. The official languages contribute to our prosperity and long-term growth. They increase the competitive advantage of Canadian businesses and enhance their ability to access markets in and outside Canada.

Our official languages are also an asset to Canada's economy and the employability of Canadians. The progress achieved in official languages over the past 40 years has made it possible to keep Canada's promise of equality for many of our citizens today.

Parliament passed the Official Languages Act in 1969, more than 40 years ago. Thinking back to that time, we remember that most of the country's communities had to communicate with federal institutions in the language of the majority. Only limited government services were available in French. Today more than 90% of official language minority communities have access to federal services in the official language of their choice.

In short, we can definitely be proud of the progress that has been made, and we know we have an excellent foundation on which to build.

Our government is building on this strong foundation through our Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, which we adopted in 2008. We recognize that official language minority communities contribute to our country's cultural and economic vitality and our government is proud to support their development.

The roadmap reflects our strong commitment to promoting Canada's linguistic duality and the development of official language minority communities across Canada. It represents an unprecedented investment of $1.1 billion in the preservation and promotion of Canada's official languages.

The roadmap builds on the solid foundation laid with the Constitution and the Official Languages Act. It also builds on more recent federal efforts to encourage the use of English and French across the country and to improve the conditions that will enable official language minority communities to flourish for the benefit of all Canadians.

It complements federal official languages policies, programs and investments aimed at ensuring, for example, that Canadians can access federal information and services in the official language of their choice.

The roadmap charts course for a more vibrant official language minority communities across the country. Most important, it is built upon the suggestions and ideas put forward by Canadians right across the country, notably official language minority community members expressed throughout the public consultations held in 2007 and in 2008.

On that note, I would like to take this opportunity to mention that our round of public consultations on Canada's linguistic duality was conducted last year. Last summer, the government met with nearly 400 Canadians in small groups across the country to hear their views on the priorities and challenges associated with Canada's linguistic duality.

More than 20 separate consultations were held involving community stakeholders, representatives and leaders of different communities working in various fields such as health, education, immigration and the arts. Canadians also expressed their views through online consultations. The progress we have made to date confirms that our achievement of the objectives of the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality is helping to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities and the involvement of Canadians in linguistic duality.

The communities are benefiting from coordinated initiatives in the areas of youth and education, economic development, justice, immigration and health care services already available to Canadians in the official language of their choice. These investments enhance Canadians' ability to live, work and prosper in their preferred official language.

For example, Health Canada's training networks and access to health services initiative is improving access to health services for official language minority communities. It is also improving the availability of bilingual health professionals who can meet the needs of all Canadians, and it is providing specialized tools required to measure and improve the health of official language minority communities.

A total of 155 health access projects will have been launched during 2010 to 2013 under the Health Canada roadmap initiative, and I would to highlight a few of them. One of the projects is designed to coordinate recruiting efforts of regional stakeholders in order to fill the needs of bilingual workers in the Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine region. Another concern is the English translation of health information documents in Saguenay–Lac-Saint-Jean. A three-year project, from 2010 to 2013, is facilitating the delivery of health care services in French in retirement homes and providing support to family caregivers in three French-speaking communities of Newfoundland and Labrador. Another three-year project from 2010 to 2013 is creating and distributing public health education and awareness tools for French-speaking and Acadian pre-school children in Nova Scotia.

The strength of this momentum has not gone unnoticed. Health Canada's initiatives were recognized in the 2009-10 annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for its commitment to community consultation. This is just one area where the government is doing excellent work.

The Annual Report on Official Languages, which we recently tabled, underscores the progress we have made in communications with and services to the public in the official language of their choice. It also provides details on the important work involved in creating and maintaining workplaces that foster the use of English and French.

I will conclude by emphasizing once again that our government has shown leadership, as may be seen from our commitments and the measures we have taken to meet those commitments. We are capitalizing on the many achievements of the past four decades. We have definitely come a long way over the past 40 years. We have come a long way since the time when federal services were offered in English only, in many cases even in Quebec.

Our task is to maintain the extensive progress of the past four decades and to build on it because our two official languages contribute to our national identity. They are an integral part of our history and enable us to strengthen our economy. They enhance Canada's competitive advantage both domestically and internationally.

They have contributed to Canada evolving into an open society that is able to attract people from different cultures around the world. In fact, our official languages enable Canadians who come to our country to participate more fully in our society, in every way.

In short, our official languages allow us to build a united, prosperous Canada together.

The House resumed from December 10, 2012 consideration of the motion that Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome Minister Moore to the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

My first question is about Bill C-419. I am pleased that the government has changed its approach and that it has now recognized that skill in both official languages is essential for certain positions, specifically for agents of Parliament.

Mr. Minister, we remember clearly that you do not support this bill. You have even said that it is useless.

Do you think that our bill is useless, yes or no?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add to this debate. It gives me an opportunity to reflect on the progress that we have made in Canada in promoting both the use of English and French throughout the country.

In particular, I would like to touch on the progress made in advancing linguistic duality in federal institutions.

The evidence is clear. A great deal has been achieved over the last 40 years.

This includes institutions such as those covered by Bill C-419, which is a bill whose core objective the government supports.

If we look back to the time when the Official Languages Act was put into place in 1969, most Canadians across the country then had to communicate with the federal government in the language of the majority. There were only limited government services provided in French in a country where more than one in four Canadians spoke French as their first language. Today, the vast majority of Canadians have access to federal services in the official language of their choice.

They can access information through a number of bilingual services such as 1-800 numbers, in person and telephone services, as well as publications and websites that include real-time updates available on wireless devices.

Today, there are approximately 200 federal institutions that are subject to the Official Languages Act.

This includes 80 institutions that are part of the core public administration. It also includes 120 crown corporations, privatized entities, departmental corporations, and separate agencies such as the 10 offices listed in Bill C-419.

In addition, certain organizations, such as Air Canada and VIA Rail, retained their language obligations after they were privatized.

When taking into consideration all institutions that are subject to the act, we find 510,000 employees spread out over every nook and cranny of the world’s second largest country.

Every one of these institutions is responsible for applying the act within their organization, including designing and delivering effective official language programming.

In short, the vast range of services the government provides is covered under the act, which is quite a feat when we consider that the Government of Canada has more lines of businesses and points of service than any other Canadian organization, public or private. In fact, the Government of Canada is unmatched in terms of the scope, reach and impact on the lives of Canadians.

Like any multinational, we have offices in most countries around the world and provide a multitude of services. We have people working in the Arctic, while others work on space exploration. We have food inspectors, forensic scientists and even volcanologists. The range of jobs is incredibly vast and we employ some of the most highly skilled people in the country. Many are internationally recognized for their expertise and for their accomplishments. This makes the Government of Canada a key to Canada's competitiveness in the global economy and our two official languages are an economic advantage.

I am proud to say that, in everything we do, we are committed to respecting the language rights of Canadians.

The federal institutions subject to the Official Languages Act continue to take necessary steps to ensure that their services and communications with the public are available in both official languages. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

Our recent annual report on official languages for 2010-11 shows that there has been consistent improvement over the last three years in creating and maintaining a bilingual work environment.

In concrete terms, the percentage of incumbents of bilingual positions serving the public and who met the language requirements of their position continued to grow. In 2011, it reached 94.3% in the core public administration.

The report shows that the percentage of bilingual positions in the core public administration is now more than 40%. In the National Capital Region, it has increased to 65%.

This is a dramatic change from 40 years ago when the percentage of bilingual positions was less than 10%.

Additionally, the report shows that, based on the 2006 census data, both official language communities are relatively well-represented in federal institutions.

Finally, I might add, the report highlights some of the measures federal institutions have taken to show strong leadership in the area of official languages. This includes the use of official-language action plans, but also simple but effective measures such as adding official languages to the agenda of executive management committee meetings. These examples demonstrate the steady progress that has been made in the promotion of linguistic duality in our federal institutions.

The bottom line is this. Over the past 40 years, we have gone from a nearly unilingual public service to a bilingual one.

Our government recognizes that it was not easy to get to this point. We also recognize that there is more to do. That is why we announced earlier this year a series of pan-Canadian consultations on official languages as part of our broader commitment to linguistic duality and our two official languages.

These consultations will permit us to follow up on the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, which we launched in 2008 and which was an unprecedented government-wide investment of $1.1 billion over five years.

The roadmap provided investments in a number of priority sectors, including health, justice, immigration, economic development, and the arts and culture. It resulted in a number of initiatives that have promoted both official languages in Canadian society and ensured that linguistic duality remains a distinguishing feature of the Government of Canada.

The consultations demonstrated our government's desire to listen to the concerns and ideas of Canadians who are deeply committed to this country's two official languages. It is in the same spirit of openness and collaboration that the government has considered Bill C-419 in front of us today.

Like the sponsor of this legislation, I along with the Prime Minister and cabinet believe that the 10 positions listed in the bill should be proficient in both official languages. We therefore support the intent of Bill C-419. However, we feel that there is a number of technical issues that need to be examined in front of committee so that the bill could be implemented responsibly and effectively. The government will therefore propose amendments that would be fully consistent with the spirit of the legislation but which would strengthen the bill and the language requirements it would create.

Our government is determined to build on Canada’s sturdy foundations, which include a desire by English- and French-speaking Canadians to share a common future. Over the years, we have seen countless efforts to ensure that Canada’s official languages continue to be a strong part of our national identity.

In particular, we have seen federal institutions over the last 40 years make important strides in making linguistic duality an integral part of their everyday operations. I assure all Canadians that their government is committed to building on this record of achievement and the record of national unity.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in the House to support Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills. I want to take a moment to congratulate and thank my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent for doing an exceptional job in bringing this bill before the House. This matter is one that needed to be raised and this could never have been accomplished in committee. I would also like to acknowledge the tireless efforts of my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst on behalf of official language minority communities.

If Bill C-419 is adopted, hopefully without amendment, it will ensure that future appointees to the 10 officer of Parliament positions will be required to be bilingual at the time of their appointment.

Earlier, my colleague listed the 10 offices covered by the bill, so I will not bother repeating them.

The bill would require persons appointed to these offices to be able to express themselves clearly in English and French and to understand both languages without the help of an interpreter at the time of their appointment.

Each office targeted by the bill was created pursuant to legislation setting out the terms and conditions of appointment and the nature of the office’s relationship with Parliament.

Officers of Parliament have a special, close relationship with Parliament and elected officials. They interact on a regular basis with parliamentarians. For that reason, it is very important that incumbents of these key offices understand and speak both official languages at the time of their appointment.

My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent has already explained the crucial roles played by the officers of Parliament targeted by the bill. In light of these roles it is critically important that they be able to interact in both official languages in order to carry out their mandate effectively, while helping to preserve and uphold Canada’s linguistic duality, a value of tremendous importance to NDP members and many other MPs from all parties represented in the House.

In the past, there was a custom in Parliament that the government would generally appoint bilingual individuals to officer of Parliament positions. Unfortunately, in the fall of 2011, the Conservative government decided to completely ignore that custom and made the extremely controversial appointment of a unilingual English-speaking Auditor General, in spite of the fact that the job posting clearly stated that proficiency in both official languages was an essential requirement for appointment to the position.

That decision was a clear insult to francophone communities in and outside of Quebec, an insult magnified by claims that no bilingual candidate could be found who was as qualified as the unilingual anglophone candidate.

I still remember the indignation of the member for Ottawa—Orléans, a Conservative member, who voiced his objections at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. He spoke out against his government's decision. And so from the outset, there was no unanimity either among the Conservatives or in the opposition.

Given the little regard the Conservatives have for the importance of that custom, which recognizes that English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament, francophones in Canada have reason to ask questions and to be concerned.

Given the ease with which the government broke that tradition, which was designed to ensure that the language rights of Canadians and of their elected representatives are respected, and the ease with which it ignored a crucial prerequisite for the position of Auditor General of Canada, it seems clear to me that we need to enact Bill C-419 now, to prevent this kind of situation from happening again.

I listened carefully to the speech by the Minister of Industry a little earlier, and I would like to set the record straight.

I am fortunate to sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Over the course of the various studies and meetings we had with various groups of witnesses, I observed that the Conservatives’ standard for bilingualism was not what was advocated by most official language minority groups. Since winning a majority, the Conservatives have made many decisions that strongly suggest that bilingualism is not a priority for them, even though they have decided today to support the bill in principle. They want to propose amendments.

They are not yet ready to decree that the people who work in the 10 positions listed in the bill must be bilingual upon assuming office. The willingness expressed today does not change the Conservatives' record since they won a majority.

There was a great deal of debate about the appointment of a unilingual anglophone Auditor General who, to this day, still cannot answer any questions asked of him in French at press conferences. This is a problem, because he was supposed to be able to speak fluent French within a year, which is impossible. I am also thinking of the appointment of Supreme Court judges and the closure of the library at the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, the only French-language science library at Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Those decisions were made at the expense of the needs and best interests of francophone communities across Canada. They also fly in the face of the government's obligation to comply with the Official Languages Act and to ensure respect for our languages and the accessibility of services in French in all federal institutions.

Another government decision demonstrates its indifference towards linguistic duality, and that is its careless and ill-advised decision to close the maritime search and rescue centre in Quebec City. It is the only centre of its kind in Canada that can provide emergency services in French to the francophone recreational boaters and fishers in the St. Lawrence River.

In addition to answering over 1,500 distress calls in French every year, the search and rescue centre officers help coordinate ground operations. They work with local stakeholders who often speak only French. The need to be understood in one's mother tongue during an emergency at sea is obvious. The government's decision could put many people's lives at risk, or even worse, cause loss of life.

On the other side of the House, the Conservatives are saying that this will not be a problem and that bilingual services can be provided by the centres in Trenton and Halifax, but we know that that is not the case. Several groups and organizations have already publicly called on the government to reverse its decision. Even the Commissioner of Official Languages has expressed his concerns to the government, but so far, he has had no response.

On November 19, the NDP held public hearings in Quebec City regarding the closure of the maritime search and rescue centre. We heard the same thing from the Corporation des pilotes du St-Laurent central, the staff of the emergency centres and a retired employee of the maritime search and rescue centre, among others. Clearly, this decision goes against the best interests of our francophone communities.

Given all the troubling findings I have just mentioned, we very clearly need a bill such as the one introduced by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent in order to protect Canada's linguistic duality and stand up for the French language in Quebec and Canada by taking real action. We must do so now.

The Prime Minister allegedly admitted that this decision was a mistake. In my opinion, it is too little, too late. This decision should never have been made since, from the very first day, the job posting very clearly indicated that the candidate had to be proficient in both official languages. We should never have to discuss this basic principle since it is in our Constitution and is part of our laws and our parliamentary work in its simplest form. We must ensure that all elected MPs can represent their constituents and do their work properly. To do so, they must be able to interact with the officers of Parliament in the language of their choice, which will make their work as efficient as possible and allow them to properly represent their constituents.

We are not asking that all public servants be bilingual. We understand that that is an unattainable goal. We cannot force everyone to be bilingual. What is more, it is unnecessary in many parts of Canada. However, it is essential that the people who hold the 10 key positions set out in my colleague's bill be bilingual because they interact with the public, hold press conferences and provide direct services to Canadians and elected members. There is no question when it comes to these people: they should simply be bilingual from the day they take office. Our country is based on the principle of linguistic duality, and that should be reflected in all the appointments the government makes to important positions such as these.

I hope that members of all parties will support this bill as it is written because it is exactly what francophone communities in Canada need.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the minister said. I served on the Standing Committee on Official Languages for a year and never understood the Conservative approach. In any case, we will certainly get back to that issue eventually.

I grew up in northeastern Ontario, in Mattawa, and went to school in North Bay. A local lawyer by the name of Dick Tafel was so adamantly anti-francophone that he became one of the best allies the francophone population could have. Indeed, each time he sent a letter to the North Bay Nugget or spoke on a radio or TV show, his comments were so shocking that they really brought us together.

As a member of this House, I saw something similar happen in 1997, when the Ontario provincial government led by Mike Harris decided to shut down the Montfort Hospital, the only French-language hospital in Ontario. There was a public outcry. Less than two months later, 10,000 people gathered at the Ottawa Civic Centre. It was the start of a legal and public campaign that lasted seven years.

The former Ontario government gave in, and the Montfort Hospital is now twice the size it used to be. It even has a 20-year contract with the federal Department of National Defence. No one will ever dare attack the Montfort Hospital again, because the reaction was so forceful. So each time I talk about it, I thank Premier Harris, who lashed out at us so strongly that we stood up for ourselves, with great results.

I believe we are now in a similar situation. In 2011, the Prime Minister and his government appointed a unilingual Auditor General, even though information published in the Canada Gazette said that in order to be eligible, candidates had to be bilingual, that is, fluent in both French and English. But the Prime Minister sidestepped that requirement and announced the job would be filled by a unilingual person. We all remember how strongly the media and the House reacted to the news.

My party did not want to support the initiative in any way, not even vote against it, and the Liberal members walked out of the House. We could not stomach watching the Prime Minister and his government turn back the clock on such an important issue. A multitude of complaints were filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages, who wrote a scathing report about the government. A number of my Conservative friends—indeed, I have Conservative friends, well, Progressive Conservative—told me they were very uncomfortable with this decision, and they still are.

Again, there was legal action. The matter is currently before the courts. One of my friends, the hon. Jean-Jacques Blais, a former solicitor general and minister of national defence in the Trudeau government, brought this case before the courts because it is disrespectful of Canada's Official Languages Act, a quasi-constitutional law. This will go through because we will see that the government did indeed fail in its duty.

We have before us today Bill C-419, a wonderful initiative by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I have already commended her on this, and I am doing so again. I did not mention it, but according to some media reports, the Prime Minister apparently admitted to his caucus this fall that it was a mistake to appoint a unilingual Auditor General. I wonder whether the mistake he was talking about was violating the Official Languages Act, failing to comply with the criteria that he and his government came up with themselves, or prompting a reaction, the sort of mini-tsunami we are currently seeing, because Canadians will stand up for linguistic duality whether the Conservatives like it or not. Such is the nature of people who, as my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent says, want to live together respectfully. That is where things stand today.

This all began in 1969. At the time, the Trudeau government passed the Official Languages Act in this House and in the Senate. It became a quasi-constitutional statute, in which both Parliament and the executive, or cabinet, have an equally important role to play. This is the history behind this bill. In Parliament, we must be able to obey the law, to follow the example, to add new conditions, new prerequisites to the law in order to keep pace with this evolving issue.

If this were a static issue, Canada would still be caught up in the same squabbles as in the 1930s, when francophones were fighting for the federal government to issue bilingual cheques. Imagine. That was the big battle at that time. I admit that we have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go.

Today, the Conservatives are saying that they will support this bill, but that is not exactly what the minister is saying. They will support the basic principle of the bill. I would like to warn my NDP, Liberal and Conservative colleagues. I know the Conservative Party's tactics. In the House they cannot decide to proceed in camera, at least not yet.

The Conservatives cannot go in camera in the House. If they did so, they would have Canadians revolting against them. However, they do it regularly in committees.

So if in committee, they decide that they do not like something and that they want to amend it, they could easily require the meetings to be held in camera, since they have a majority. With all due respect, I really do not trust this government. I have seen too many situations where they manipulate things.

Today, the Prime Minister is having his Quebec lieutenant, the Minister of Industry, talk. It is also important that they tell us that they do not intend to water down the bill, to gut it, or to come up with a scheme involving in camera meetings or the Senate, since we know full well that a private member's bill can be stalled almost indefinitely in the Senate. We used to have this ability in the House but not so much any more because the committees must report to the House about a bill within a certain time frame. They can request that the deadline be extended, but they must still report to the House. However, such is not the case in the Senate.

Is the government trying to pull a fast one on us today? This is exactly is why the House must be on guard. My colleague, the Liberals' official languages critic, will ensure that that this does not happen in committee. If necessary, we will alert the Canadian public once again. There must be an outcry, since we cannot allow the government to do something like that.

I know a number of Conservative members who are in favour of linguistic duality. They are here in this House and are listening. I hope that they will also have the courage to go talk to their Prime Minister to ensure that the government will not be scheming behind closed doors to remove all meaning and legitimacy from this bill.

In conclusion, I would have preferred that it not come to this. The government announced that it was looking for a bilingual candidate, it hired a consulting firm to do the hiring and it appointed a unilingual candidate. That shows a lack of natural justice for all of the unilingual anglophones and francophones in the country who would have applied for this position. They did not apply because they thought that the government would keep its word, but that was not the case.

Now we are having a debate that I believe could have been avoided, but the government chose not to avoid it. When we tried to bring this to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the Conservative majority totally and systematically opposed it.

That is why I am questioning the government's good faith. The Conservatives had their backs against the wall because of Canadians' desire to honour linguistic duality. They saw that in the polls. They ignored the act and their own eligibility criteria, and in doing so they were caught off guard and claimed to support the principle. So we must be careful. If they support the bill and it passes in the House, it will then have to pass in the Senate so that it receives royal assent and comes into force immediately, since these are all mechanisms that could cause further delays, which is unacceptable.

[Christian Paradis, Conservative, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture)]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to announce that our government fully supports the primary objective of this bill and that we will be proud to vote in favour of it.

It is an honour for me today to present our Conservative government's response to Bill C-419 respecting language skills for officers of Parliament to ensure that all officers of Parliament are able to express themselves in our great country's two official languages. This support is in line with our party's long-standing tradition, our legacy to Canadians and our vision for our country's future.

I began to get involved in the Conservative Party as a teenager some years ago. Time unfortunately passes quickly, but I was already a proud Quebecker then. The more I learned about the history of our people and of our country, the more I realized how the Conservative Party had laid the foundation of this country in a way that would enable our nation to survive and prosper.

As the Prime Minister often says, our country was born in French, in Quebec City, in 1608. When our founders laid the groundwork for our modern Canada in 1867, they chose the confederation model, led by Conservatives John A. Macdonald and Georges-Étienne Cartier, to enable our nation to grow in our great country.

I should also note that it was in 1959, under the Conservative government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, that simultaneous interpretation was introduced here in this House. As I did not support the Liberals' policy, which was mainly about keeping Quebec in its place, it was clear to me that promoting Quebec's identity, the French language and respect for provincial jurisdiction was part of the Conservatives' DNA in Quebec.

I therefore enthusiastically joined the Conservative Party, and time has proven me right. Years have passed since the government of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney made the principle of the advancement of official languages the central component of the Official Languages Act.

However, when I meet people and our supporters on my travels in Quebec, I can see they are still moved by that vision for our country and our nation. I know they are as proud as I am to see how our government and the Prime Minister have taken up the torch.

In recent years, our Conservative government and our Prime Minister have written a new chapter of history by recognizing the great nation of Quebec. Quebec now has a seat at UNESCO. We have also invested significant amounts of money in our communities to promote our official languages and cultural diversity under the roadmap for linguistic duality. Our government continues to be clearly committed to promoting our official languages in Canada and on the international stage.

That is why the Prime Minister travelled to the Democratic Republic of Congo in October for the Sommet de la Francophonie, an organization in which Canada plays a true leadership role. Not only did we host the Sommet de la Francophonie in the magnificent city of Quebec in 2008, but last year that city also hosted the very first global forum on the French language.

As I said earlier, Conservatives in Quebec are proud of our government’s achievements and have also expressed their support for the principle of this bill. The Quebec caucus has listened to them, the Prime Minister has also listened to them, and even more importantly, we share their belief. It is therefore entirely natural for us to continue to build on our tradition and support the idea that this bill advances.

We do see a number of technical issues in this bill that we will be able to resolve when we examine it in committee, and we will be pleased to bring our contribution and our Conservative know-how to that task. The approach we are going to take will be constructive, with the aim of ensuring that this important bill is passed. We will therefore go forward with a pragmatic approach, an approach that acknowledges our history and builds for the future. In other words, a Conservative approach.

If there is one place in Canada where an example should be set and our principles of promoting our official languages honoured, it is certainly the Parliament of Canada. Our Acadian and Fransaskois friends, the Brayons, and Quebeckers—all are well aware of what a treasure a language is.

Our support for this bill will send a clear message that today more than ever, promoting our official languages is a guiding principle for the federal government, not just because Canada was founded in French, but also because French must be at the heart of our future.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, another one of the very talented young MPs elected to this House during the 41st general election. In fact, the House is made up of a number of excellent young MPs. So I would like to congratulate her on Bill C-419, which would make bilingualism necessary in order to obtain certain positions.

I would like to hear her comments on the fact that the Prime Minister plans to support her bill. Knowing that some members have not yet decided whether they will support it, can she reassure them by explaining why it is a good bill that everyone should support?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent on bringing forward this bill.

According to reports in this morning’s newspapers, the bill has the support of the Conservatives, or the Prime Minister, but it could be subject to a few amendments. One amendment that might be proposed is that people appointed to one of the offices listed in Bill C-419 on an acting basis would not have to meet the requirements set out in the bill. Personally, I think that this makes sense.

How open is the hon. member to amendments like this which could in fact threaten the fundamental principle of this bill?

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

moved that Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise here today to introduce my private member's bill, Bill C-419, to the House and to answer questions from my hon. colleagues.

First of all, I would like to take a moment to sincerely thank my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, for all his support and the huge efforts he has made regarding my bill. I do not know anyone who advocates for bilingualism as passionately and eloquently as he does. I hope his bill requiring Supreme Court judges to be bilingual will enjoy as much success as mine.

If I may, I would like to take the time to provide some more detailed information about the substance of my bill. I know my colleagues are already aware of what Bill C-419 proposes, but I would like to begin by clearly defining the foundation for the changes proposed in this bill.

My bill has already received quite a bit of media attention, which makes me very proud. My bill has inspired people to take the time to contact my office, looking for more information and asking some excellent questions. During my speech, I will draw on some of those very relevant questions in order to ensure that my approach remains clear and can be easily understood.

Bill C-419 is actually very simple. The bill's official summary states that “persons whose appointment requires the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament must understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and be able to express themselves clearly in both official languages”.

Those few people whose appointment must be approved by one house or both houses are commonly called “officers of Parliament”. Therefore, Bill C-419 would require that officers of Parliament be fluent in Canada's two official languages when they are appointed.

For people watching at home, I want to stress again that this bill would not require that all elected federal MPs be bilingual. That would be an amazing proposal, but it is a different kettle of fish and not what we are working on today. This bill only refers to officers of Parliament, those senior officials who, as I just explained, are appointed by the House of Commons or the Senate, or by both the House and Senate.

There will still be unilingual MPs in our Parliament. That is totally normal. However, just as government operations must adapt to the needs of Canadians, Parliament must adapt to the needs of elected MPs. This means that officers of Parliament must adapt to the needs of MPs, no matter what their language background.

A question that naturally springs to mind is: how many officers of Parliament are there in total?

Who are they? First of all, these are people who have expertise like few others, who fulfill an essential role in our democratic system. The Parliament of Canada has to be accountable to Canadians. That goes without saying. This accountability is guaranteed through the work of officers of Parliament. In a way, they are akin to safeguards, alarm systems and safety nets. They guarantee the legitimacy of the parliamentary system. They are there to support the government in its obligation to keep Canadians abreast of what it is doing. When the government fails to disclose everything, officers of Parliament can go through the government's paperwork to ensure that everything is in order, legal and fair. They are the eyes of Canadians in the drawers, wastebaskets and paper shredders of the government. Understandably, officers of Parliament are a valuable resource in our system. They are the most reliable component of the entire parliamentary process.

How many are there? Roughly 10. Why do I say “roughly”? Because this is not a precise and well-defined category. There is a bit of a grey area. The precise definition of who is an officer of Parliament and who is not—and for many other categories for that matter—seems to be more a matter of tradition than anything else.

My bill focuses on 10 positions. What are they? I will list them: the Auditor General of Canada, the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Senate Ethics Officer, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada and the President of the Public Service Commission of Canada.

That is all of them. Canadians are not always aware of the important role these various people play. Every year, these officers of Parliament table reports that have a major impact on how political life in Canada unfolds. If any inconsistencies are noted, the government will be required to explain those to the opposition and, by extension, to Canadians, to whom we are all accountable.

The system is perfect not because it prevents abuse but because any abuse will always be detected in the end. The safety measures are an integral part of the system and help to ensure that the system functions properly. However, to be able to detect this abuse, officers have to be able to understand what they are told and what they read.

Imagine if the former auditor general, Sheila Fraser, had not been bilingual. It would have been much harder for her to understand the complexity of the sponsorship scandal, since it was centred in Quebec. When officers have to analyze such sensitive and complex documents, it is of the utmost importance that they be able to do so in the language in which those documents were written. A mastery of both official languages was absolutely essential for Ms. Fraser because, despite the excellent work of the translators and interpreters, she might have missed some nuances that were key to understanding the scandal. Let us not forget that, without Ms. Fraser, this charade might still be going on.

Officers of Parliament have a clear mandate: to uphold, promote and monitor integrity. They have the right to know everything, to ask anything and to understand everything that is happening within their jurisdictions.

The Auditor General of Canada must conduct independent audits of government operations. He reviews the accounting, checks the accuracy of financial statements and decides whether the government is using public funds effectively and fairly.

The Chief Electoral Officer is the senior official responsible for the administration of federal elections and referendums. His office is responsible for registering political parties, maintaining voter lists and enforcing the Canada Elections Act.

The position of Senate Ethics Officer is held by one of the senior officials of the Senate who are responsible for ensuring that the Senate institutions run properly. The Senate Ethics Officer is responsible for enforcing the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators.

Next, the President of the Public Service Commission of Canada is the head of the commission. The commission—and I am quoting the by-laws and operating principles of the Public Service Commission—"is an independent agency mandated by Parliament to ensure a public service that is competent, non-partisan, representative of the Canadian population and able to serve the public with integrity and in the official language of their choice.”

Whether we are talking about the Commissioner of Lobbying, who ensures that elected officials fulfill their rights and obligations under the Lobbying Act, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, who is responsible for giving confidential advice to public office holders, or the Commissioner of Official Languages, whose job is to ensure that everyone abides by the Official Languages Act, they all protect Canadians, elected officials and the system.

Our system is precious and reliable. It exists for all of us, and officers of Parliament play an essential role in maintaining the excellence and sustainability of the system. It is easy to see. These senior officials must all deal with Canadians from both of Canada's linguistic groups and must consult documents written in both languages. Their understanding of French and English is essential.

Bilingual candidates have generally been appointed to these positions in the past. Everyone acknowledges the fact that the ability to interact in both languages is a prerequisite if we want the job to be done well in a timely manner. In other words, tradition has been a kind of precedent.

Being bilingual in French and English is a competency. Since Canada adopted institutional bilingualism, anyone in this country who wants to become bilingual can do so. It is a matter of putting in the time; all of the tool to get there already exist. I will be very specific. I am talking to those who may not entirely understand. Institutional bilingualism simply means that the government adapts to its citizens; not the other way around. One thing remains clear: linguistic duality will always exist.

No one is trying to create a culturally bilingual state. Not at all. The anglophone side will continue to live, dream and love in English, and the francophone side will continue to do the same in French. Bilingualism is seen as a plus, but it is not an obligation in this country. When Canadians who live in linguistic minority communities talk about bilingualism, they often mix up certain concepts. Some say mean things, others say incorrect things and others dream about multicultural utopian futures. There is no shortage of opinions.

I would like to make some things clear. People often use foreign examples—European ones, specifically—to support their opinions, but those examples do not necessarily reflect our situation. People name officially bilingual countries in Europe, assuming that it is the same thing and that we should either act the exact same way or the complete opposite way.

One of the countries most often mentioned is Belgium. However, it is actually not an appropriate example. While there are parallels between our situations, the Belgian model does not really apply to the Canadian situation. First, the country’s very small size is a factor. There is no need to deploy resources far from Brussels, since the federal capital is readily accessible to everyone. As we know, that is not the case for us.

Second, the linguistic dividing line in Belgium is very firm, and ultimately it has made Belgium a completely decentralized, even divided, country. Flanders and Wallonia live side by side, but they manage their own cultural affairs without really needing to consult each other. Canada tries to do things quite differently. We want to live together.

If fact, if there is a European country whose language situation better reflects Canada’s, it is Finland. Finland is officially bilingual. Finnish and Swedish are both protected in the Finnish constitution. The Finnish government adapts to the Swedish minority language group by providing it with all government services in Swedish. In Finland, children systematically learn both official languages in school. Our situation is similar. Although the Swedish-speaking minority mainly lives within a well-defined geographic area, its members do still live all over Finland.

The Finnish government makes sure that all services it is responsible for providing to the public are available in both languages.

That is institutional bilingualism. The government arranges things to include everyone. No one is obliged to be something they are not. No one tries to impose their language on anyone else. That is the most appropriate system for Canada, for our demographics and our geography.

It will come as no surprise to anyone if I say that of the two languages, French is the one in the minority in Canada. This naturally creates a situation with which we are already familiar. More French speakers than English speakers are bilingual. This is not a criticism directed at the majority; it is simply an observation.

On that point, however, I would like to mention Quebec's English-speaking minority. The last four decades have had an enormous impact on how that segment of our society has come to see itself. Political events and the development of new sentiments in Quebec have compelled these million individuals to reinvent themselves and adapt.

I would like to take this opportunity to tell the anglophones of Quebec that we are proud to live with them and that our future will be a shared one, just as our past has been.

We might think, then, that this bill would benefit francophones more because they are more aware of the need to learn the second language than are anglophones, who are the victims of an odd sort of prejudice precisely because they are part of a majority all their lives. However, I believe that this is a completely false argument.

You do not suddenly become an officer of Parliament by surprise in the middle of a career as a clerk in Saskatoon or as an undertaker in Sorel, without seeing it coming. Someone who is already moving in circles from which he or she may emerge as a candidate for that kind of position is well aware of Canadian law and knows that bilingualism is a requirement.

We are causing harm to no one by requiring bilingualism as a precondition by law. On the contrary, we are doing a lot of good, and here is why.

I have just returned from Moncton, the capital of Acadia, where I had the opportunity and pleasure to meet with several Acadian cultural organizations. Passing through Acadia always does an enormous amount of good for your national feeling. The people you meet there are often extraordinary. Acadia is a land of rare, even unique dynamism and vitality.

So I went to meet with those organizations to present this bill to them. The Acadians long ago made a clear choice for their future. New Brunswick being what it is, they decided that bilingualism was an asset, and they thus made it part of their vision for society.

New Brunswick is the only Canadian province expressly referred to in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its bilingualism is protected, and that is clearly set out in the act.

Reaction to this initiative was very positive. All the organizations offered their support for my bill. To them, it was clearly consistent with the general thrust of the goals we have set for ourselves as a country. I was very pleased to see that this bill met some genuine political expectations in Acadia.

Acadians live as a linguistic minority. They are therefore extremely sensitive to that fact and know how to advocate for their rights. From the outset, of course, they are a people of uncommon strength of character. As a Quebecker, I can say that, whereas we in Quebec complain like souls suffering in the limbo of our thwarted desires, Acadians often forge ahead, make demands and win.

It is an unusual privilege to be able to travel across our country and see how attached people are to their language rights.

Perhaps we should stop viewing ourselves as the Trojans of North America.

We need only talk to each other and listen to each other because Canada is a fundamentally open, progressive, fair and good country. We are the envy of the entire world as result of these values that define us and that Canadians fully embrace.

I am personally convinced that we have every interest in joining forces and working together. That is ultimately the only way for Canada's two linguistic communities to reconcile. What some have for too long called two solitudes can ultimately prove to be two solicitudes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the commissioner and his team.

Mr. Commissioner, you say that the 150^th anniversary will be an event to remember. I know I am putting you on the spot by saying what I am about to say, but I notice that you named all the prime ministers who have done good things but stopped at a specific point. You did not mention the current prime minister, to whom we owe the appointment of a unilingual judge to the Supreme Court and of an auditor general who is also bilingual, as well as the closure of the only French-speaking rescue centre in Canada and the transfer of its calls to Halifax and Trenton. That is not a shining record. What will there be for us to remember in 2017?

Could you first tell me if you support private member’s Bill C-419 that specifically mentions the auditor general? You talk about respecting both languages. As commissioner, it is your role to defend that idea. But we are seeing that things are not going that way at all.

Are you not concerned about the direction that the Conservative government has taken? It is all very well to be preparing for celebrations in 2017, but things are happening in our country right now. Incredibly, government support for bilingualism is moving backwards at the moment. I would like to hear your comments about that.

[Michel Bédard, Committee Researcher]

The first bill to examine is Bill C-419. This bill requires that any person appointed as an officer of Parliament understand and clearly express himself or herself in both official languages.

This bill does not concern questions outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution, including the charter. It does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on in the current session, and it does not concern questions currently on the order paper as items of government business.

Official Languages

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, we are currently studying Bill C-419. Our government makes appointments on the basis of merit, and its top priority is to offer Canadians the best possible services.

Bilingualism

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a progressive, open, fair and good country at its core. What has far too often been described by some as the two solitudes can also be the two solicitudes.

That was Jack Layton's vision, and I share that vision.

I strongly believe that this feeling is shared across Canada: that all things considered we have more in common than we have things that separate us.

Jack's motto is a strong Canadian motto: Travaillons ensemble!

And the French language, the first European language of this country, is an integral part of what defines us.

I introduced Bill C-419 to require officers of Parliament to be bilingual. These women and men are the ultimate resources in the machinery of government and, as such, they should be able to understand both complementary parts of this Confederation.

I hope that we can count on the support of the government, but especially on that of the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages and all members from Quebec, who will be able to show their love of bilingualism and their support for the progressive values that make our Confederation the envy of the world.

Official Languages

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

Mr. Speaker, we had to introduce Bill C-419 to ensure that our officers of Parliament are bilingual because the Conservatives appointed a unilingual anglophone Auditor General.

It should be fairly simple. In Canada, we have two official languages: French and English.

Although he is a Conservative, the hon. member for Beauce understands why this was important. However, some members of the Conservative caucus still do not get it.

Will the government vote in favour of Bill C-419, yes or no?

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

Mr. Speaker, let us mention the Supreme Court justices.

Yesterday, the Minister of State for Small Business and Tourism said that my bill on the bilingualism of officers of Parliament was a very good bill. A few minutes later, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages flatly rejected it. This morning, that same minister flip-flopped and now he has no idea what he wants.

There are two official languages in this country, and officers who serve Parliament should be able to speak both.

Are the Conservatives going to support Bill C-419 or not?

Language Skills Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that I am introducing this morning will ensure that persons appointed by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament—basically those we refer to as “officers of Parliament”—are able to understand French and English without the aid of an interpreter and are able to express themselves clearly in both official languages before being appointed to the position.

Those we generally refer to as “officers of Parliament” hold the following 10 positions: Auditor General of Canada, Chief Electoral Officer, Commissioner of Official Languages, Privacy Commissioner, Information Commissioner, Senate ethics officer, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Commissioner of Lobbying, Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and president of the Public Service Commission.

These positions require the incumbent to be able to communicate in both official languages in order to be able to properly carry out his or her duties. Knowledge of the official languages should therefore be a required skill.

Parliament operates in both official languages. Some parliamentarians are bilingual while others speak only English or only French. The officers of Parliament must therefore have the ability to communicate with parliamentarians in both official languages.

This bill targets only 10 people, but these 10 people play a key role in our parliamentary system. We therefore invite all Canadians to see languages not as an obstacle but, rather, as a way to bring people together.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)