Evidence of meeting #24 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
If I raise a point of order, will you give me the floor?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
You'll give me the right to speak?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
NDP
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
May I move an amendment to the amendment?
9:15 a.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Yvon Godin
No, you may not move an subamendment or a sub-subamendment or a sub-sub-subamendment.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
9:15 a.m.
NDP
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
But when will we be allowed to speak?
9:15 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
In that case, let's continue our backroom dealings. Perhaps we'll come up with something soon.
Getting back to this motion, the fundamental problem is that it has the effect of permanently disrupting—well, no, I withdraw the word "permanently" because there always has to be a glimmer of hope—the relationship of trust between parliamentarians, governments and the public, particularly within this committee. According to the research, comments that have been reported to me and information that I have received, the Standing Committee on Official Languages was probably the model or perfect example of this joint work that we wanted to accomplish. That work was not intended to be 100% partisan. Although each person addressed the various issues using a different approach, from a different angle, there was a genuine collaborative effort.
I spent an entire campaign with the lamented Jack Layton promoting the theme of "Working Together", not only because it was a slogan, but especially because I fundamentally believed in it. That's precisely what the public expect of us. They elect a number of representatives of various stripes and ideas with the clear and avowed notion that, from the clash of ideas, light will spring forth. It expects those parliamentarians to combine their efforts to find the best possible solutions to the issues that concern them.
With regard to those issues and the official languages field, I go back to the situation of the francophone communities. The clear and relevant examples of that disruption of the relationship of trust are many. Among others, we can recall the appointment of a unilingual anglophone justice to the Supreme Court. I would not want anyone to find himself one day before a court—even less before the Supreme Court, as that would mean that proceedings had gone on for a very long time—and to feel that the judge does not understand the relevance or details of his comments or the underlying emotion. That comes with language and culture. It is utterly unacceptable, in a country such as ours, for a unilingual judge to be appointed and for the claim to be made that a qualified bilingual judge could not be found. It is a recognized fact that the population of this country is approximately 34 million inhabitants, and I don't know how many of that number are experienced bilingual lawyers and judges.
There was also the appointment of a unilingual anglophone auditor general. With two appointments of that kind in quick succession, that begins to undermine trust in this Parliament. However, it doesn't stop there. There have been numerous appointments. We could also talk about the cuts in the number of translators at the Translation Bureau. That is a tough blow for the official language minority communities.
More recently, the Canada School of Public Service stopped teaching English and French as second languages. On that subject, I have information that gives us an idea of the scope of that measure and of the damage it is causing.
Following the cuts to the number of translators at the Translation Bureau in the fall of 2011, we learned that the Canada School of Public Service would no longer be teaching English or French as second languages. Nearly 200 teachers will therefore lose their jobs, and federal institutions will have to resort to the private sector for language training purposes. In so doing, the government is attacking its own expertise, which it has developed over the years.
The government justifies this change of direction as a cost-cutting issue, claiming it would cost the private sector less to provide the same services, but is that true? Since every department is responsible for providing language training to its employees, it is very difficult to obtain information on actual training costs.
However, this past December, the Ottawa Citizen reported that the costs of language training to the Treasury Board Secretariat had increased. According to the paper, the average expenditure by the department had risen from $429 to $943 between 2006 and 2010. We're talking about $2 million a year. It appears that resorting to the private sector does not necessarily result in less spending.
We have to question this decision since it involves a loss of expertise, which is just as important as money, because this government does not appear to have a consistent policy on decentralization. On the one hand, the government is seeking to centralize pay services and information technology to achieve savings, while, on the other hand, it is utterly decentralizing language training in the hope of saving money. What consistency!
We also have to question the quality of the courses being offered by the private sector. How is that market regulated? Have those services been evaluated? We know that the Public Service Commission monitors the evaluation of government employees' language skills, but if course quality isn't there, public servants will have to take a lot of courses to reach the bilingualism level required by their positions.
On the one hand, the figures show that training costs are on the rise. On the other hand, in its last annual report, the Public Service Commission stated that, in the last five fiscal years, the number of persons entitled to language training appointed to non-imperative positions for which they did not meet language requirements had declined as a percentage of the total number of appointments from 1.7% in 2005-2006 to 0.8% in the current fiscal year. Those individuals must meet the language requirements of their positions before the end of the maximum period prescribed by order and regulation.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
May I introduce a unanimous motion for the debate to return to the amendment, please?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Its purpose is to return to the debate on the amendment. I believe we have gone too far. I don't understand.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
I'm getting there. I only have a few more sentences, Mr. Gourde.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
We have not been talking about the amendment at all for the past 10 minutes. May we adopt a unanimous motion to have the debate return to the amendment?
9:25 a.m.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Yvon Godin
You may not introduce any motions, but you may request unanimous consent to introduce a motion.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
May we unanimously present a motion to go back to the study of the amendment?
