Government Operations Committee on March 29th, 2023

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I am not a member of this Committee, but I am the Conservative official languages critic.

It has been brought to my attention, and one of the analysts mentioned it as well, that McKinsey provided 91,000 pages of documents for the Committee’s study of the report. Various government departments and agencies also provided documents.

According toHouse of Commons Procedure and Practice:

Federal departments and agencies must submit their documents to committees in both official languages. Any other individual, including a member of Parliament, may submit written documents in either official language.

So this is not about the 91,000 pages provided by McKinsey; rather, it is about documents provided by departments.

The clerk received a letter on March 25 from the Department of Employment and Social Development indicating to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates that they were unable to provide their documents in both official languages.

I will read part of that letter, signed by the Deputy Minister of Employment and Social Development, Jean-François Tremblay:

Please be advised that in order to meet this commitment, certain concessions were made with regard to the sequencing of the documents contained in the French instalment […]

I would remind you that House of Commons Procedure and Practice stipulates that documents presented to committees must be provided in both official languages. The procedural guide does not state that concessions must be made.

As you know, the Standing Committee on Official Languages is currently studying Bill C-13, which aims to modernize the Official Languages Act. In Canada, there are two official languages, but only one is in decline: French. In my opinion, this information should be included in the report.

I consider it unacceptable to make concessions with respect to one of our two official languages, whether it be English or French. In this case, it is French. This will be a sensitive issue as long as Canada remains a bilingual country. I emphasize the word “bilingual”; in Canada, that includes English and French. I remind you that though the Governor General of Canada is bilingual, she does not speak French.

It is important that the clerk and members of the Committee realize that the rights of members who speak only French are being violated. Yet this is a parliamentary right. As a Member of Parliament, I believe that the very least we can do is respect that right.

I will continue reading the Deputy Minister’s letter. It explains why the French documents were not provided in time by saying that it is “due to the technological limitations that cannot be addressed within the current time constraints.”

What kind of behaviour is that? How can the members of the Committee accept this situation? Parliamentarians’ rights are being violated, and that indirectly affects respect for one of our two official languages.

I would like this to be reflected in the report or for the study of this report to be postponed, since not all parliamentarians who work in French have had access to the same information, which is unacceptable.

I thought it was important to share this with you, Mr. Chair. Indeed, as long as Canada is a bilingual country, we are obliged, as parliamentarians, to ensure that the use of both official languages is respected and that House of Commons procedures, which require all federal departments and agencies to provide documents in French and English, are respected as well. This should not be done by making concessions or reducing the text.

Take the example of a document you received here, which contains 800 pages in French and 1,000 pages in English. An analysis of translated documents tells us that the French version of a document that was translated from English contains 10% more words. In this case, the document would therefore be at least 300 pages short.

Which parts of this information are not available to French-speaking Members of Parliament?

I think it is important that this be brought to your attention and taken into consideration to prevent such a situation from recurring. In my opinion, the drafting of the report should be postponed until all members of this committee have access to all the documents, both in French and in English. They will have to be translated in an acceptable manner so as to respect the meaning or interpretation of each word.

That is all, Chair. I apologize, I don’t mean to be…

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I assume you mean the McKinsey report and not this report that's being translated.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You were referring to ESDC. Thanks.

Mrs. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I want to talk about when I read the letter from the deputy minister, Mr. Tremblay. I know I have a certain temperament, so I realize I can be a bit hotheaded. Nevertheless, I want to say calmly how dismayed and disappointed I was when I read the letter, which suggests that it's more acceptable to speak only English than to speak only French in Canada. Basically, the deputy minister seems to be saying that French speakers should be able to read English because that is the language spoken by the majority. Francophones can figure it out. It's no big deal if the metaphors and such go over their heads.

It's time to stop treating us like second-class citizens.

Has there ever been a time when documents weren't translated into English, when English speakers didn't receive materials at the same time as their French-speaking counterparts or when they received fewer documents than their French-speaking colleagues because of a decision to make concessions on the English translation? I'd be curious to know the answer to that, because as far as I recall, that's never happened in Parliament.

I can see some of my fellow members are paying attention, but I can also see others who are on their phones or computers. Their actions merely prove my point. Some unparliamentary language comes to mind, but I will refrain from using it.

I take the time to read every single document. I even have to read documents in both official languages because sometimes the French versions are more redacted than the English ones, or because the French translation is frankly pitiful. Do you have any idea how much work that is? I do it because I care about making sure that taxpayer money is spent well, that it's not squandered. If, at the end of the study, all that effort helps me come to the conclusion that public funds were not squandered, I'm pleased and satisfied with the work I've done.

However, I want you to understand what it means for a francophone to have to do double the work because something was only partly translated or not translated at all. It's an insult. It's unacceptable. It's the ultimate slap in the face. This needs to be written in the report, and that report needs to go to the House. Enough is enough.

Quebec isn't the only place with francophones. They live all over the country, and each and every one of them is entitled to respect. These documents may not necessarily be in the public domain, but even when they are, the same problems arise. I'm not even talking about the grammar or syntax errors. I'm talking about glaring errors and incomplete documents. Enough is enough.

Here's what I think of a letter like that, and I'm going to say it in English so it's perfectly clear.

It's a piece of crap.

Sorry, I know it's unparliamentary language, but that's exactly what it is. It has to be said.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you, Mrs. Vignola.

Yes, I agree with the second part. It had to be said. I appreciate that.

Colleagues, are we ready to discuss Mr. Barrett's motion or move forward on it?

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to say something, because I think there are two issues, here.

The first issue is what Mr. Godin and Mrs. Vignola talked about. It's not acceptable for the French version to have more redactions or for it to be incomplete. Nor is it acceptable for a deputy minister to use language like that. He doesn't seem to be aware of the fact that he has an obligation to provide the committee with the documents in both official languages. Clearly, that's a problem. Perhaps we should ask the person who signed the letter to appear before the committee so we can explain it to him.

The second issue has to do with the fact that we asked organizations across government for thousands of documents at the same time. Depending on the government's contractual policies, those documents aren't necessarily available in both official languages at the time that the committee requests them, obviously. Under one policy, the subcontracting business with the company can be carried out in the official language of the company's choice. A company could very well have a series of contracts in French or in English, so any contracts and related materials requested by the committee would need to be translated. In this case, we are talking about having hundreds of thousands of pages, if I'm not mistaken, translated into French or English.

Clearly, that isn't easy to do, so the committee should take that into consideration. If we are going to set tight deadlines, it's almost impossible for an organization to provide the committee with properly translated documents. If the committee's priority is to ensure that organizations meet the deadlines we impose or that they provide a wide array of documents—as opposed to specific documents—it can make things worse. That's what happened here, with the translation of all these documents.

I think the responsibility here is shared between the departments and the committee, because of the deadlines we set and the huge number of documents we requested.

However, with respect to translation quality and the deputy minister's intent in his letter, I think we should ask him to appear before the committee to explain his letter. We can report to the House on the translation issue, because it's important.

On the question of the documents themselves, Mr. Chair, I want to make sure. I think it's mostly you I'm hoping will have the action item here. To me, there are a couple of questions.

McKinsey originally delivered documents that were redacted. Then we went back to McKinsey and we said to McKinsey, “No, that is not acceptable. Please provide us with documents that are not redacted, and we will give you a chance to justify to us what shouldn't be made public based on the documents you now give us”, which McKinsey then agreed to.

I am not 100% sure, but it doesn't seem to me that we've clearly stated that to government departments. My request to you, Mr. Chair, is that I think the next step would be to go back to the government departments and say, “We asked you for non-redacted documents. We sent the same letter to everybody, and you have not delivered non-redacted documents. McKinsey has delivered all the documents in non-redacted format. PSPC, the main department, has delivered their documents in a non-redacted format. We fully expect you to comply with this order and deliver us non-redacted documents. In the event that you believe some of the provisions should not ever be made public, please provide the committee with all of the reasons that part shouldn't be made public, and we would be delighted to consider all of your requests. Provide us with this by X date.”

If they don't comply at that point, I'd be happy to say that it would get referred, but I would like to give a clear directive to the chair to go back to the departments with a very clear message to each of the departments that has not complied, exactly as you did with McKinsey.

To me, on that part, on the documents part, Mr. Chair, I'd like to see that as the next step as opposed to just sending this report to the House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'll address that.

We have had lots of problems with the departments. I think ESDC is just the cream on the top adding to the issue of refusing to comply with Parliament. We've extended lots of opportunities and written several times to each of the departments that have refused. We heard in committee from two different deputy ministers when their ministers were here that they didn't believe they needed to comply.

The correspondence coming back from the departments is almost.... Ms. Vignola talked about not wanting to use unparliamentary language. I'm at that point right now as well. It's almost at a level of arrogance. We've had them quoting law, how it violates the Constitution to obey an order of Parliament and how they were following a past practice of ignoring Parliament in refusing to hand over these documents. One of the departments out and out said “No, we are not going to give you anything.”

This committee, I believe, has bent over backwards and been accommodating. A lot of it has arrived late. It's like, okay, we wish you would comply with an exact date. We've extended dates. By and large, these departments....

We've written several escalating letters, from polite to less polite to even less polite and more direct, reminding them of the motion and very clearly of what the powers of committee are. They have responded by saying, “No, we'll follow the ATIP rules,” or “We're not providing it.” We heard, I think, CBSA say in this committee, “We'll take it under advisement” and that they had to balance it.

I'm sorry for being on the high horse here. We've given these departments every opportunity to do this. Then, today one of the departments comes back with a slap in the face.

My French is, frankly, quite horrible. I've spoken French twice in the House in seven years here. I've tried, but it's not good. However, our rules and our laws are that it's both languages. Our rules and our laws also say, in the green book, very clearly, the powers of committee.

It's not once. Sometimes we have sent three or four letters demanding this. We quite literally just get a “No, we're not interested. We don't believe we have to.”

I'm happy if it's the will of the committee to make one more attempt, but we've given them several clear, unambiguous statements of what is required of them. If it's the will of the committee, I will do that.

It's Mr. Godin, Mr. Barrett, Mrs. Vignola and then Mr. Kusmierczyk.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In response to the honourable member, I would say that it's not about doing things the easy way. Canada is a bilingual country. We speak English and French. This isn't about how easy something is to do.

In his letter, Deputy Minister Tremblay asks the committee for indulgence. It's as though speaking French and having equal access to the information is asking for charity.

I think this goes beyond what's easy. This has to be a priority.

I have a suggestion. Although I'm not a regular member of the committee, I would like to propose an amendment that the report be updated to reflect the official languages issue. I think it's important to have it in there. We could refer to the documents provided by Employment and Social Development Canada, or ESDC, to illustrate the point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry, but without being a permanent committee member, you cannot move the amendment. I think Mr. Barrett is up next, and I'm sure he might be willing to. If not, then Mrs. Vignola will.

Let's just deal with Mr. Barrett's original motion to begin with.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Right. I'm happy to move the appropriate amendment once we've dispensed with the amendment that is currently on the floor, but I don't think I can amend my amendment.

I guess I'd just ask one very quick thing.

I appreciate your intervention with respect to the fairness that has been offered to the departments. It's included in the letter. It talks about the March 6 motion the committee passed, and then the letter that was sent two days later to all the committees. It was at that time that members of the committee raised the question of privilege, and the chair suggested, if memory serves me, that more correspondence be sent. The correspondence was sent.

Once is the correct number of times we need to ask to get what the departments are legally obligated to provide to us. They've had multiple opportunities and ample time. They've demonstrated, as evidenced in multiple letters, an unwillingness or a refusal to comply.

We are where we are not for a lack of opportunity being given by this committee, and that's evidenced in the report prepared by the analysts.

Chair, we're past 6:30 p.m. I'd like to know how much time we have left. On this important issue, I think we're able to dispense with it today, because we'll be weeks further down the road before we have an opportunity to deal with this again. I wouldn't want to see us lose resources before we resolve it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Let me find out quickly, and then I'll let you continue.

We have maybe about 20 minutes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Okay.

I have my motion on the floor. I look for support for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We have Mrs. Vignola, then Mr. Kusmierczyk and Mr. Johns.

Please keep in mind the time.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

May I move Mr. Godin's proposed amendment to the report?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

I'm sorry. Give me one moment.

Yes, that's fine, Mrs. Vignola.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

First, I'd like to respond to the member's comment about the deadlines being tight and the documents taking a long time to translate. At the end of the day, francophones are always the ones who pay the price. French is always sacrificed. You would be just as angry if the deputy minister had asked the same indulgence of anglophones in the letter.

Let me be clear. I am not pitting anglophones against francophones. This isn't 1759 and the battle of the Plains of Abraham. That's over. It's a subject we could discuss at length.

No one would accept the deputy minister's comments had it been French documents that weren't translated into English. We are always being asked to show indulgence and make concessions. As I said, francophones are always the ones who pay the price. We exist, and we will continue to exist. We matter. Until there is evidence to the contrary, we are part of what we currently call Canada, and we are entitled to respect like everyone else.

I'm going to push for the update because this involves a formal and official request. That is the reality and this is about respect through and through.

For that reason, I am asking that the report reflect the issue with official languages and the translation of the documents. ESDC's letter could be attached to illustrate the point.

We matter. Thank you.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Aimée Belmore]

Sorry to jump in, but I have a question.

Mrs. Vignola, did you want to just mention the letter, or did you want to add it to the report?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

When the analyst drafts the report, I want it to mention that organizations are not respecting their official languages obligations in providing us the requested documents. That is true for the redacted content and for the quantity and quality of the translated content.

[The Clerk]

Very good. Thank you.

I was wondering whether you wanted to include the letter as an attachment, but if not, that's fine.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Perhaps it's not necessary to attach the letter, but I would like the report to mention it as an example, please.

[The Clerk]

What you would like, then, is for the report to address the official languages issue and mention the ESDC letter.

Is there any specific language you would like to include, or do you just want me to ask the analyst to address the matter?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

I trust the analyst to accurately render the feelings I expressed earlier, perhaps in somewhat of a more reasonable tone. The point is to make sure that documents are translated in full.

Thank you.

[The Clerk]

Just to confirm what you're asking, Mrs. Vignola, I'd like to know whether the analysts have permission to come up with a paragraph on the matter, as opposed to including specific language in the report. Since Mr. Barrett had asked about including specific language, I want to make sure we carry out your intentions faithfully.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

As I said, I would like the analyst to add a paragraph on the matter and to put into words the feelings I expressed. I think that would be a much more reasonable approach than to cite anything specific I said earlier.