Evidence of meeting #18 for Official Languages in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was bilingual.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
That was not my question.
At the Supreme Court of Canada, is it possible for the eight justices who speak French and who are discussing a French case to speak the language of their choice if there is one justice among them who does not speak French, and if no interpretation services are available?
Conservative
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
I am against your bill for many reasons, because your--
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I guess you are also telling the Senate to vote against it, are you not?
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Your government is telling the Senate to vote against this bill, right?
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
We will see. I am sure there will be a lengthy debate in the Senate. Our government is against your bill because the purpose of the Official Languages Act is to unify Canada, not to divide people on the basis of language.
NDP
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
No, your bill would divide the country.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
The only thing my bill says is that the people of this country have to be able to make themselves understood in both official languages. And you say that is divisive?
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
No, your bill and the way it would be applied would not be in the best interests of Canada.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
As you said, for more than 140 years, the Supreme Court of Canada has served all Canadians very well. Your little game with Mr. Mulcair and this bill that you have introduced to try and win seats in Montreal is dividing Canadians, and is not in the best interests of Canada.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you very much, Mr. Godin.
We will move now to Ms. Glover.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again, welcome to the Committee.
I would also like to thank our other witnesses for being here today.
Personally, I like to hear the answers. Mr. LaRocque, you were talking about what our government is doing with respect to the public service. I would like you to complete your answer.
Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
I want to say right off the bat that I am no expert on the Canada School of Public Service. That responsibility falls to my colleague, the Secretary of the Treasury Board.
However, based on my understanding of the situation, people are invited to do a self-assessment using a computer. It is a way of obtaining an overall assessment of their mastery of the second language. Based on that, training plans are developed for them. Within that framework, much greater use is made of computers, as opposed to individual training.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you very much.
I really liked the tests, exams and evaluations, because they meant that I did not have to wait. In that respect, I certainly understand the rationale for that process.
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
Because this question came up within the context of public service--Mr. Godin's bill--let me just take a minute, without the shouting back and forth and in the constraints of time, to say, in the language in which I'm obviously a little more comfortable, yes, Mr. Godin, we are against your bill, because I think the Supreme Court of Canada is one of Canada's great institutions and it has served this country incredibly well for over 140 years without your bill.
I think what you're doing with Thomas Mulcair and, unfortunately, some members of the Liberal Party—although from private conversations, I know there's a great deal of doubt within the Liberal Party about the position they've taken on this private member's bill—is that you're taking Canada's responsibility to bring Canadians together and to respect our official languages and using that as a political wedge. This is, I think, a very cynical game, using the Supreme Court for political purposes that are entirely unhealthy.
As you know, when Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin was appointed to the Supreme Court, she would not have qualified to become a member of the Supreme Court under your bill. As you know, John Major has spoken out against your bill. As you know, the Globe and Mail, Maclean's, the Toronto Star, and the Montreal Gazette have all written that your bill is destructive to the court. And francophone papers--
Conservative
James Moore Conservative Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC
--have spoken out against your bill, saying that it's not in the best interests of the court, of Canadians, or of national unity to go down the road that you're proposing here.
I think the Supreme Court has served Canadians very well. The Official Languages Act has served Canadians very well. Of course, there are at times challenges when it comes to ensuring that Canada's official languages are seamlessly realized in every aspect of the public service, but to use the Supreme Court, through your bill, as a wedge like this to try to divide Canadians in a cynical attempt to gain a couple of seats in Montreal is really the worst of politics.
Conservative
Shelly Glover Conservative Saint Boniface, MB
Thank you very much, Minister.
I'd like to return to the road map, if I could, for just a moment, because that is in fact why we're here today. I know that other members had a number of questions that they've said were relevant to the road map, and I'm going to ask one. You've commented that it differs from the action plan in the Dion era. I'd like you to expound on how it differs, please.