Of course.
So, I will continue. It is important to have guidelines about in camera meetings. As I just said, there is occasionally some confusion about that. In camera proceedings have been used so often that it's becoming difficult to keep track. We no longer know when exactly we are allowed to inform Canadians and when we need to remain silent. I hope I do not infringe upon anyone's parliamentary privilege. I will tread very carefully.
The next motion calls for the Treasury Board Sub-Committee on the Strategic and Operating Review provided for in “The Next Phase of Canada’s Economic Plan—A Low-Tax Plan for Jobs and Growth” to provide the committee as soon as possible but no later than noon on October 11, 2011, with a copy of the working document which states how the official languages are being incorporated into the review.
Once again, that was something that should have been done more urgently by the committee and that has now become outdated, unfortunately.
The next motion I want to bring to your attention concerns an issue that has been raised many times at committee meetings. The study on the north is a topic that has given rise to much passionate debate within this committee and will continue doing so until we can agree on what needs to be done so that this situation can be properly resolved. The motion calls for the committee to resume its study of the development of linguistic duality in northern Canada initiated during the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, and that the evidence and documents it received in the course of this study be taken into account during the current session.
I have another motion, which is also about the study on the north. That study has cost Canadian taxpayers a lot of money, and I think they deserve an explanation on how the money was spent and what results the study yielded. The motion calls for the committee to publicly justify before January 30, 2012, the reasons for which it spent $109,621.18 to conduct a still-incomplete study on the development of linguistic duality in northern Canada.
Regarding the last two motions I just read, I want to repeat how important they are for the members of the committee, at least as far as the NDP is concerned. I also think that Mr. Bélanger mentioned several times how important that study was to him. We even received a letter from the Association franco-yukonnaise, the Yukon francophone association, and the Yukon francophone school boards asking the committee to quickly consider that matter.
Another issue should normally be part of a study on a government initiative as important as the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. I am talking about hearing from the Department of Canadian Heritage minister and senior officials. The committee has not yet taken that step even though, as we mentioned, the mid-term report is due soon. We, the NDP, have asked the committee to invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the deputy minister and the appropriate senior officials to discuss the mid-term report for the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013 by February 23, 2012. As you can see, it's still not too late to do that. If we can manage to conduct more open discussions and agree on the rules regarding in camera proceedings, we could hear from those witnesses and ask them questions that come directly from members of official language minority communities.
Several other motions we have moved have nothing to do with the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality, but are still related to a number of issues that are at the heart of concerns raised by witnesses representing official language minority communities.
One of the things we have mentioned several times in this committee is CBC/Radio-Canada's place in communities' cultural lives and the key role that institution plays in disseminating information and news within those communities. Official language minority communities are very concerned by the cuts currently planned at CBC/Radio-Canada. In an attempt to shed some light on that situation, we asked the committee to invite the president and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada, Hubert T. Lacroix, to attend a two-hour public and televised meeting before February 15, 2012, given how important CBC/Radio-Canada is for the vitality of official language minority communities. Once again, it's not too late to act. I think it would be important to hear what he has to say before the new budget is tabled. That would help us properly address the concerns voiced by members of official language minority communities.
Another motion we moved is more related to the closure of the Canadian Coast Guard's coordination centres for search and rescue operations, in Quebec and elsewhere. A number of questions were asked in the House with regard to that. Several civil society groups have expressed strong disagreement with those closures for various reasons. Some of the reasons have to do with security considerations, but many of them go straight to the heart of the official languages issue and the need to provide equivalent services to official language minority communities.
With that in mind, and to address those concerns, we asked that the committee undertake a study of the closure of the Canadian Coast Guard's coordination centres for search and rescue operations in Quebec City and St. John's by December 15, 2011. Unfortunately, we are already past that date, despite the fact that this issue is extremely urgent, since the closures are planned for spring 2012. Despite that, I think the members of this committee still have time to do something about this issue and to publicly examine it.
Another worrisome event took place in the House in June 2011. Mostly untranslated documents on the transfer of Afghan detainees were submitted in the House of Commons. We feel that is a major failure to meet the obligations parliamentary institutions have. With that in mind, we asked that the committee study the submission of documents regarding Afghanistan in the House of Commons on June 22, 2011, hear witness testimony and report to the House by October 27, 2011.
I will now tell you about another motion on a different topic. We asked that the committee resume its study of the 2009-2010 Annual Report (Volume II) of the Commissioner of Official Languages initiated during the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session, that the evidence and documents it received in the course of that study be taken into account during the current session, and that it reissue during this session any requests for information that were sent to federal institutions as part of the study but that went unanswered.
Further to that, we also put forward a motion asking the committee to find the institutions that have not acted on the requests made by the committee during the 3rd Session of the 40th Parliament and make the names of those institutions public by October 11, 2011.
Lastly, our final motion calls for all committee business to be conducted publicly, unless the committee has the consent of at least one member of the opposition to conduct the meeting in camera. The rules very clearly state that we cannot tell you what happened in camera. That is the real problem behind our discussions today. We can, however, tell you that we moved all those motions. Furthermore, it is a matter of public record that the Standing Committee on Official Languages has been bogged down by the roadmap study for months.
The Conservatives have asked that the committee proceed in camera for 6 of 21 meetings. That is huge. Given the fact that neither I nor my colleagues have been able to contribute directly to the committee's agenda and given the government party's lack of openness toward our motions, we have had to find other ways of making ourselves heard and making Canadians aware of the issues related to official languages, issues that are of great concern to us. One of the key measures we have had to resort to is asking the official languages commissioner to examine what we believe to be blatant violations by this government of its constitutional obligations to official language minority communities.
I will now take advantage of the fact that this meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages is taking place in public to read some of the letters we have sent to the commissioner. These letters clearly state all our concerns and all the reasons we believe these issues should be discussed by the committee in public proceedings. That makes the amendment put forward by Dan Harris all the more relevant, so as to ensure that whenever the committee decides to proceed in camera, it will have obtained the prior consent of at least one member of the opposition to do so.
As you will see, in one of our first letters, we raise many issues that had already been the subject of some of our motions. The first deals with the closure of the coast guard's search and rescue coordination centre in Quebec City. The letter was sent to the commissioner on October 3, 2011:
Dear Commissioner: On July 19, 2011, an analyst at the commissioner's office refused to investigate a complaint regarding the closure of the coast guard's search and rescue coordination centre in Quebec City, on the grounds that the complaint did not satisfy one of the conditions required to conduct an investigation, the condition being that the complaint must result from a specific incident. We do not agree with that analysis. To begin with, stakeholders in the search and rescue field do not wait for an incident to occur before they think about what should have been done; such an approach could have fatal consequences. Prevention must also apply to the field of official languages. Every effort must be made to ensure that rights are not denied. We are well aware that, from an operations standpoint, it is appropriate to ensure that a case under review meets the established criteria before a decision to launch an investigation can be made. We also believe, however, that it is appropriate to challenge the criteria in question when circumstances warrant. It is important to ensure that bilingual staff are on hand, but by no means does that guarantee that language problems will not arise, problems that could have fatal consequences, as mentioned earlier. How can organizations guarantee bilingual service at all times, for instance, when bilingual employees are sick or on break? Have the key stakeholders been consulted on the repercussions of such a decision and the appropriate measures taken? It is necessary to consider the bigger picture. Although francophones are not the minority in Quebec, they are the minority in the country. The closure of the search and rescue coordination centre in Quebec City and the transfer of its responsibilities to an anglophone region will have an impact on the vitality of the language communities. For these reasons, please accept this letter as a formal complaint. In the event that you still deem this complaint to be inadmissible, we would ask that you kindly provide us with the exact reasons for such a determination.
The letter was signed by the four NDP members who sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, as well as by Annick Papillon, the member for Québec, and Philip Toone, the member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
As I mentioned, in addition to the safety issue related to the necessary knowledge of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence River, one of the most difficult areas to navigate, is the considerable concern over the ability of bilingual staff in Halifax to provide equally effective service in French.
In this case, the ability to obtain French-language service is more than just a right; it is often a matter of life and death. For the sake of numerous Canadians, this issue warrants a public debate by the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The subject has been raised over and over again by members of the opposition, and it is precisely in cases such as this when it should be necessary to obtain the consent of at least one member of the opposition before a debate is allowed to proceed in camera.
The second letter, sent to Graham Fraser on October 4, 2011, concerns documents that were tabled in the House of Commons. Of course, the letter pertains specifically to the tabling of documents regarding the transfer of Afghan detainees, documents that were not translated. Certain documents are available in French only, but clearly not many. The majority of the documents are available solely in English.
I will begin by reading you the letter. I feel obliged to stress the importance of this complaint, especially as it relates to our responsibilities as members of a parliamentary institution with a duty to respect the principles of bilingualism. The letter reads:
Dear Commissioner: On June 22, 2011, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, tabled, in the House of Commons, documents pertaining to the transfer of Afghan detainees by Canada, as well as a report by a panel of arbiters (parliamentary document 8530-411-3). We believe the tabling of these documents constitutes a violation of the Official Languages Act. On the one hand, the act stipulates that “any document made by or under the authority of a federal institution that is tabled in the Senate or the House of Commons by the Government of Canada shall be tabled in both official languages”. That section of the act was not respected. On the other hand, the act also stipulates that “the journals and other records of Parliament shall be made and kept, and shall be printed and published, in both official languages”. As of today, we are still being told that the records of those tabled documents have yet to be made available in both official languages and that Parliament has made no attempt to have them translated. Out of respect for the [official language] communities and the act, we ask that you conduct an investigation into the tabling of these documents and that you accept this letter as a formal complaint.
The letter was signed by the four NDP members who sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
The Official Languages Act very clearly states that the government and all government institutions are required to produce documents in both official languages. That did not happen in this case. As a result, the ability of parliamentarians to do their jobs effectively was undermined. Although some parliamentarians are fortunate enough to be bilingual, others have yet to be so fortunate. Right now, those parliamentarians are not able to analyze all the available documents for themselves. This issue sparked considerable debate in the House of Commons and was of the utmost importance to a number of members. We would have liked to read for ourselves all the documentation produced by the panel of arbiters and by the government.
That is why we asked the commissioner to investigate the situation. In our view, it never should have happened, regardless of whether time or budget restrictions were to blame. There is no valid reason that would justify the failure of a parliamentary body to honour its legal and constitutional obligations. Once again, in light of our responsibilities as parliamentarians, we believe that a public debate should have taken place in this committee at the time and is still warranted today. For that reason, we filed a complaint.
We hope that, once the roadmap study is complete, we will be able to hold these debates in committee in an open and public manner. To that end, it is imperative to support my colleague's amendment requiring the prior consent of one member of the opposition anytime the committee wishes to proceed in camera.
We sent another letter to the commissioner on October 25, 2011. In that letter, the complaint had to do with the business cards used by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The issue was raised in the House of Commons, and official language minority communities, specifically French-speaking ones, found it quite offensive—to put it mildly. That is why we felt the need to raise this tremendously problematic issue directly with the commissioner in the following letter:
Dear Commissioner: As you are well aware, the Minister of Foreign Affairs used public funds to purchase English-only business cards for himself. That action would appear to be a clear violation of the Federal Identity Program (FIP) requirements set out by the Treasury Board Secretariat (TBS) and of the spirit of the Official Languages Act. It would also appear from newspaper reports that the President of the Treasury Board approved the exemption from TBS directives. It should be noted that, according to the FIP Manual, business cards must present both official languages side by side, or they must present English on one side of the card and French on the other. The NDP finds it unacceptable for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, supported by the President of the Treasury Board, to exclude one of the nation's official languages from a promotional item used by the Government of Canada, thereby discrediting the principles of a longstanding policy. The minister defended himself in the House of Commons by saying that he had bilingual business cards. It is clear that if he does keep them in his pockets, he does not use them for much. Therefore, out of respect for official language communities, I would ask that you launch a formal investigation into this matter.
The letter was signed by Yvon Godin, the member for Acadie—Bathurst. Of course, the letter is endorsed by all of my colleagues. We fully agree with the content of the letter I just read.
It is incumbent on all parliamentarians to show leadership when it comes to official languages and their promotion in communities, through both our actions and our contact with people. It is all the more incumbent on ministers.
It is unthinkable that a situation such as this would occur, regardless of how it may have been explained by the minister. For that reason, we decided to call on Graham Fraser and on his office's ability to investigate and scrutinize the matter.
Yet again on October 25, we were faced with another decision by this government that we could neither understand nor explain. It is our view, and likely that of other opposition members as well, the decision in question should have been debated immediately and publicly by the committee. I am referring to the appointment of the Auditor General of Canada. It is quite to easy to sweep a decision of this nature under the rug, a decision that quite frankly puts the government in a rather uncomfortable position.
The amendment proposed by my colleague is absolutely critical to ensure that an open discussion would be possible in cases such as this, where decisions spark off considerable controversy and debate, among parliamentarians and Canadians alike, and not just within official language minority communities.
Of course, I will discuss this controversy in more detail in a minute. I believe it is important to bring up some of the facts involved and some of the statements made when the debate became more visible in the public eye.
But first, I want to read the following letter:
Dear Commissioner: We learned that Mike Ferguson of New Brunswick would be named Auditor General of Canada. Mr. Ferguson is unilingual. However, according to the notice of vacancy that appeared in the Canada Gazette [...], “proficiency in both official languages is essential”. I wish to point out that the government is, as a result of this appointment, breaking its own rules. The slew of unilingual appointments to key positions by the Conservative government does not bode well for Canada's linguistic duality. Therefore, I would ask that you, the protector of language rights, step in to investigate the matter and make a decision on this appointment.
That complaint was signed by Yvon Godin, the member for Acadie—Bathurst. Once again, however, its content is endorsed by the entire New Democratic caucus and by the opposition members on this committee. I am taking the liberty of assuming here that Mr. Bélanger is in agreement. I would be greatly surprised if I were mistaken. I will ask him when he returns.
As I mentioned, this decision provoked significant debate and controversy, given the importance of the responsibilities placed upon the Auditor General, responsibilities we feel require a good understanding of both of Canada's official languages if they are to be discharged in an effective and efficient manner.
In Quebec, of course, as well as elsewhere in the country, numerous people were very unhappy with this decision. They would have liked to see the committee study the matter publicly and seek out further justification for the government's decision, anything that might explain its choice. This decision is unacceptable, in our opinion.
Furthermore, I remember the appeal made by the member for Ottawa—Orléans, who unfortunately no longer sits on this committee but who I feel would have found these comments rather interesting to say the least. His remarks were made quite voluntarily when the issue was raised a few months ago during the committee's various discussions on the matter. He made it perfectly clear to the committee that he was, and I quote, “among the most disappointed of MPs when we learned of the appointment of a non-bilingual auditor general”. He went on to say that, when the appointment was announced, he reacted strongly, wanting to know where the mistake had been made.
I would say that the point here is crystal clear. Even certain members of the government could not understand the appointment of a unilingual English-speaking auditor general and felt that it should have been the focus of a public debate by the committee. Had the committee already accepted an amendment such as the one moved by Mr. Harris, we could have, in my opinion, had the necessary discussions and perhaps gained a better understanding of all the factors that contributed to a choice seen by many Canadians and parliamentarians alike as wholly inappropriate.
If this appointment stirred such strong emotions within the Conservatives' own caucus, the need to question the true importance of bilingualism to this government is unmistakable. We must hold these discussions openly because Canadians have the exact same questions.
I want to get back to the letters sent to the commissioner, as there are a few more. Another issue we wanted to raise, given what a blatant violation of official languages obligations it appeared to be, was the configuration of the voicemail systems at Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the House of Commons. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Commissioner: First, we wish to draw your attention to a fact we learned about from newspaper reports. English is the default language for the configuration of the new voicemail solution provided by Bell Canada and chosen by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC). The CIC's decision to use this solution violates the Official Languages Act because it deprives employees across the department of their right to work in the language of their choice. It is all the more concerning given that CIC management knowingly informed staff that their first interaction with the new system would not take place in French, an infringement of employees' language rights by management. Second, we learned that the default configuration language for the House of Commons voicemail system is also available only in English [...]. Not only must these situations be rectified immediately, but they must also be avoided in all federal institutions. It is a matter of respect for the language rights of public servants and the employees concerned. Therefore, please accept this letter as a formal complaint against the CIC and the House of Commons.
This particular complaint was signed by Robert Aubin, the member for Trois-Rivières, and by Yvon Godin, the member for Acadie—Bathurst. Yet again, we fully support its content.
Decisions of this kind may seem harmless enough to some people. But they have a real impact on the work done by public servants, members of Parliament and their teams. We must make sure that everyone who is part of the government apparatus can have direct access, right from the outset, to any service in their mother tongue, be it English or French.
This is the committee with the responsibility to handle these types of questions. They go to the heart of the matter of compliance with the official language obligations of the government, the House and the various departments. This is why we submitted this complaint. It is also why we feel that we should have had an open debate at this committee.
On November 29, 2011, we also considered the auditor general's report entitled “Yukon Health Services and Programs”. The people in northern Canada have a significant place in our debates because they play a major role in French-speaking Canada. For us, it is important that this kind of debate take place in this committee, and, of course, in a public session. This is the issue that makes our amendment so relevant. Once again, I repeat my wish to see the Conservative members withdraw the original motion that precedes my colleague's amendment. At very least, I invite each of you to support the amendment.
I will now read the letter:
Sir, As a follow-up to the complaint about the former auditor general, Ms. Sheila Fraser, dated November 1, 2011 and submitted by Yvon Godin MP, we hereby submit a second formal complaint. At the meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, held on November 22, 2011, we found out, from the Association franco-yukonnaise (AFY), that, on February 25, 2011, the auditor general issued a report entitled “Yukon Health Services and Programs—Department of Health and Social Services” that made no references to services in French, nor to official languages. This failure to mention and evaluate services in French and the official languages in this territory is unacceptable, given the intent of the study: The Yukon Department of Health and Social Services is responsible for delivering health and social programs and services to people in Yukon. In 2009-2010, the Department spent $148 million on health services and $109 million on social services, continuing care and corporate services. We examined the Department's planning processes and the way it manages its health programs and services. We specifically focused on the diabetes and alcohol and drug services programs as examples. How is it possible that Ms. Fraser examined the Department's planning processes and the way it manages its health programs and services without considering official languages, which are an integral part of the Yukon health services and programs? What about her responsibilities in official languages matters? The answer is simple. As you know, Ms. Fraser has stated: “The fact remains that Parliament has entrusted the responsibility for all matters dealing with official languages to the Commissioner of Official Languages.” This statement from Ms. Fraser goes against the Official Languages Act but it has defined the direction of all the activities of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada for the last 10 years, to the considerable displeasure of our official language minority communities. Instead of standing with those communities by making official languages a part of audit exercises, Ms. Fraser has turned a blind eye to the poor management of the funds that should be set aside for official languages. The development of [official language] communities demands a genuine appreciation for their needs in all areas [of activity]. To evaluate program efficiency while neglecting language matters is to ignore the communities' specific needs and challenges. The auditor general's report on Yukon health services and programs is a concrete example of an incident that gives you grounds to formally investigate Ms. Fraser's conduct during her mandate, as we are asking.
This letter was signed by the four New Democrat members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
A little earlier, I mentioned the matter of accountability problems. This is another glaring example of a frankly unacceptable situation that could well be the subject of a discussion at the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
As I mentioned during the study on the Roadmap, a number of witnesses told us about their difficulty in determining the exact source of the funding they receive. I feel that our complaint addresses these extremely important concerns that should be taken seriously by a government that especially prides itself on its skill in financial matters and the management of public funds. We do not know how these funds are spent, where the money is invested, or whether official language minority communities are well-served by the programs that the government has put in place and by the various sums of money set aside for them.
In my view, this situation must be corrected as quickly as possible. A public debate must take place. We feel that it would make no sense at all to hold a discussion of that kind behind closed doors. Why? Mainly because official language minority communities have asked us directly to solve this problem and have raised a number of concerns about it. I believe that this also shows the relevance of the amendment that my colleague Mr. Harris has made.
As I have pointed out to you, we NDP members feel that most, if not all, of these issues should have been discussed by the committee in public. The discussions must be held and Canadians must have access to what is said. Canadians are concerned about these issues too.
We have heard their concerns expressed in a number of ways, such as the letters and emails sent directly to our offices. They have expressed their concerns in open letters to newspapers, or in the testimony we have heard here as we studied the Roadmap. Canadians do not want these debates held in secret, behind closed doors as the government chooses, especially when our discussions here could be embarrassing for its members.
As parliamentarians, we are all responsible to the Canadians who have given us the mandate to represent them and to defend their interests. All of us also have the moral obligation, to say nothing of the legal obligation, to be publicly accountable for our decisions.
That is why we feel that it is essential for us to have tools such as the one proposed in my colleague's amendment. The amendment seeks to make sure that discussions at this committee are never held secretly, that information will never be hidden from Canadians without a consensus among members of this committee that some discussions must occasionally be held in camera. We must make sure that the opposition can always have its say when the committee decides to take a step like that.
We feel that it is essential that the work of this committee is open to Canadians because the debates we have often deal with their concerns. The Official Languages Act imposes a responsibility on us. Canadians have a right to be informed about the discussions we engage in, because they deal directly with matters that are close to their hearts.
Sitting in camera will not let us tell Canadians that the Treasury Board Secretariat has quashed the official languages requirement in one of its policies without regard for the implications. Sitting in camera will not let us tell Canadians that the Treasury Board has decided to require less reporting from federal agencies, even though the Official Languages Act is thereby contravened.
Sitting in camera will not let us tell Canadians that the government has introduced a bill affecting Air Canada in a way that gives the impression that official languages are being respected when in fact the bill in question puts Canadians' language rights further in peril.
Sitting in camera will not let us tell Canadians about the consequences of eliminating the language teaching positions at the School of Public Service.
And sitting in camera will certainly not let us tell Canadians that the Conservatives want to continue making unilingual appointments to positions for which bilingualism should be an essential requirement. We have mentioned the auditor general on a number of occasions. But let us not forget the judges of the Supreme Court.
Our responsibility is to raise questions about government decisions or actions that may seem to fly in the face of the Official Languages Act, or even merely of its spirit. We must do that in public. Canadians expect that we will effectively fulfill that part of our mandate. The debates that form an integral part of this committee's work must be held in public unless there is consensus for the committee to sit in camera.
We are under an obligation to discuss this matter. It is neither just nor responsible to entrust the decision to sit in camera entirely to the government members who could well—as they have already done—make a decision to their advantage in order to hide certain debates and controversies from Canadians. Yet it is clear that those hidden questions are likely to affect the sensitivities of the very people who deserve to have quick answers to the questions raised.
In addition to the constitutional and legal obligations we have, I feel that it is extremely important that all parliamentarians, especially those on this committee, promote bilingualism in everything they do and in everything they say. For example, we must make sure that debates on urgent matters of concern to Canadians are done in public in order to demonstrate the government's commitment to promoting bilingualism.
On a number of occasions, I have had the misfortune to hear that bilingualism is something that costs our society too much; that it is considered more an obligation for those who want to aspire to the highest offices, to the best jobs, in our public service than one of our society's values in its own right. That is in part our responsibility, because we are members of Parliament. It is for us to ensure this promotion, this celebration of bilingualism. One of the ways to do that, I feel, is to engage in public debates on the issues that are crucial for official language minority communities.
In support of my position on the matter, allow me to read you an article from the Globe and Mail. The item is dated January 23, 2012 and sets out the reasons why it is important for Canadians, and in their interests, to be able to speak both official languages. I feel that this short item will once more help to show the great importance of the amendment made by my colleague, an amendment that will allow us to hold all important debates in public, though the topics may sometimes be controversial. In that way, Canadians will be able to understand our concerns as parliamentarians, concerns that very often correspond to their own.
As I mentioned, this is an item from the Globe and Mail of January 23, 2012 entitled ”Linguistic versatility is undervalued”:
Canada, an officially bilingual country, is a leader in the promotion of second-language knowledge. Ottawa and the provinces together spend more than $2 billion a year offering government services in both French and English. Yet the actual ability of the population to speak both French and English remains stubbornly low. While 35 per cent of francophones in Quebec speak English, only 7.4 per cent of anglophones outside Quebec speak French.
In the U.S., 9 per cent of the population speaks two languages--to say nothing of the European Union, where 56 per cent of citizens can hold a conversation in a language other than their mother tongue and nearly one-third have mastered a third language, according to a new study by the Association for Canadian Studies.
There are complex reasons for English Canada's ambivalence toward French, among them the regional concentration of francophones, and the rising importance of Asia in the global economy, especially in Western Canada. One-third of people from British Columbia and Alberta think Spanish and Mandarin might be better choices as a second language than French.
And yet the challenges of Canadian bilingualism may also stem from its association with government legislation. Mastering both of Canada's official languages may be wrongly perceived as an historical anomaly, or an expensive government-imposed obligation. (In fact, there is no official requirement to learn French and English, except for public servants.)
Instead, learning a second language should be viewed as a gift to society that confers significant global advantages, and bridges cultural divides. “In other countries and regions such as Latin America and Europe, multilingualism is embraced by the majority, especially for young people, and seen as a way to advance,” notes Jack Jedwab, the study's author.
Most Canadians receive second-language instruction in school, but many then lack an opportunity to use it. Through creating more opportunities--and incentives--to speak French, this trend could be reversed. Bilingual employees are more likely to be better paid, especially in Quebec, and in the public sector.
The ability to speak French, English--as well as Spanish or Mandarin--should be seen as a source of pride and as an investment in the future that will yield dividends over a person's lifetime. Canadians should feel blessed--not cursed--to be home to two of the world's great languages.
I feel that a reading of that item clearly sets out the kind of attitude we should have as parliamentarians. More specifically, I feel that this kind of attitude should be reflected in all the government's actions and decisions. Recently, that has not always been the case.
I will not recite the list of motions that the opposition has made, or the list of complaints that we have had to submit to the Commissioner of Official Languages, because it has become impossible to raise even extremely important issues at this committee.
In my view, we must make sure that this open attitude and this approach of considering bilingualism an asset, as a positive feature for Canadian society and for every member of it, is also reflected in the procedures in effect at this committee. One of the ways of doing that is to hold debates in public and not behind closed doors. We must continue to make it possible for Canadians to be informed about decisions that sometimes, not to say frequently, cause problems for official language minority communities.
Once again, I insist on the significance of the amendment that seeks to ensure that the consent of at least one opposition member is required if and when this committee's work needs to be taken in camera.
We have to show leadership. For Canadians to appreciate that leadership, people must be able to be aware of the work the committee is undertaking as well as the discussions and debates that we hold. That will also help to give them confidence in our ability, as members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, to defend the interests of official language minority communities. Canadians must be able to fully understand that we are working to enhance the vitality and to support the development of those communities. As members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, it is a matter of concern to us to promote their mother tongue in communities where that language is less widely spoken. I feel that my position on that matter is clearly understood.
Given everything I have just said, and given the fact that Canadians have access to much more information on matters that this committee could have, but has not yet, discussed, they better understand the objections of opposition members to the possibility of having all the committee's work done in camera.
Now we likely understand a little better the Conservatives' thinking in replacing a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages who had in-depth experience of official languages matters. Despite our occasional differences of opinion, the member for Ottawa—Orleans had raised questions about the fact that the auditor general, and the headhunters who were hired to research the applications, were unilingual English. Unfortunately, Mr. Galipeau will not be able to vote on the motion. Will he come back to us, I wonder? If he does, and if the matter remains relevant, we could bring it up again.
Yet we question the government's desire to work with official language minority communities and to help them in their development. We do so because some of the Conservative caucus' expertise has been removed from this committee and because of the desire to hide all the work the committee does.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives no longer have any need to show us that they are opposed to the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act. Every day, every week, brings us new evidence of that. We feel that it is important for Canadians to be aware of these circumstances that are for the most part detrimental to official language minority communities. Canadians need to know these things. They have the right to all the information they need in order to judge our actions, the way in which we fulfill our mandate in the next four years, and the way in which we have defended the interests of official language minority communities. It is dishonest to sit behind closed doors and to pretend to support improvements in official language communities. Canadians must be aware of the discussions that go on here.
Even among Canadians who are not members of official language minority communities, there are many who celebrate bilingualism and have an interest in the status of French or English in the rest of the country.
For example, we have heard from people in British Columbia, members of Canadian Parents for French, who have spoken to us about the importance of French in their children's educational path and in their future. They have said that they are very much in favour of the teaching of French, which gives the children a better chance to see doors open for them in the future. I believe that those Canadians, exactly like many members of official language minority communities, want to know the status of the discussions we have, the topics we deal with and the decisions we make, whether they result in action or in no action at all on certain issues.
In that regard, sitting in camera is a problem. It does not let us inform Canadians about the decisions that are made, whether to simply ignore an issue, to not undertake a study, to not produce a report or to not make recommendations to the government. These too are elements of the information that is essential for Canadians if they want to form an impression and get a real sense of what goes on in this committee, if they want to know how French-speakers will be treated by this government and if they want to become familiar with the issues raised by official language minority communities that will simply be ignored or forgotten. There is even no way of knowing when those issues could come back on the table because, at the moment, setting the agenda is out of our hands.
I believe that I have clearly shown the importance of the amendment for all opposition members of the committee. Once again, I am taking the liberty of speaking for you, Mr. Bélanger. I think that I managed to grasp a good measure of your intentions and your views when you explained to us the Official Languages Act, and other related matters, in a little more detail.
I am now going to pass the floor to Robert Aubin, who will continue the discussion.