Official Languages Committee on March 26th, 2013

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

Let's turn that around and say that we won't give the responsibility to the Governor in Council and we'll leave Parliament to do it. The way the government is run, if a majority government decides to appoint another person, and puts a bill before the House, and doesn't add the person to the list, we will end up with a person who will not be bilingual. That would be more possible than having it done through this bill here and the Governor in Council having the responsibility to put it on the list.

[Stephen Thompson]

I would bow to your expertise as a parliamentarian. It would seem to me that the Governor in Council is not as accountable to Parliament as parliamentarians are to themselves. If a bill were to pass the House where a position was created that didn't have the proviso of the need to be bilingual, is that more or less accountable than if it's done by an order in council? I don't know that. It's a technical question.

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

Ms. Kenny, my question has to do with the Governor in Council. The bill already states that the Governor in Council may add someone. Currently, the Governor in Council can appoint officers of Parliament, and appointments are then approved by the House and the Senate. That is how the legislation currently stands. People are appointed by the Governor in Council, and appointments are then approved by Parliament.

Mr. Thompson, if we take that out, do you not think we could end up having a majority government put forward a bill to add a new officer of Parliament, but the government would not add the position to the list because the position is not included in the current bill?

The first thing the Governor in Council must do when an officer of Parliament is appointed is to appoint someone bilingual, then the appointment is approved by Parliament. Parliament will not be able to refuse a bilingual person because the legislation already stipulates that the person must be bilingual.

[Marie-France Kenny]

I would simply like to ask a question to get some clarification. Mr. Godin, are you asking me if it is better to have Parliament make the appointment? I don't understand the question.

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

Currently, the Governor in Council has the power to appoint officers of Parliament.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Yes.

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

He has that power. It is written here that he would also have the power to add to the list. He cannot remove positions from the list, but he can add them.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Yes, that's right.

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

If we remove that provision, only Parliament will be able to list new positions, but if there is a majority government, the exact opposite could happen.

[Marie-France Kenny]

That's right. If I may, I would add that the process could be very long as well because, unless I'm mistaken, an amendment would have to be made to the act to add names. If the act already sets out that the Governor in Council can appoint someone, the process will be quicker.

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

Thank you.

Clause 4 reads as follows:

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.

What is your position on that?

As you said, you have not been asked to appear after the amendments, but I think that's normal. When we are studying a bill, we invite people and, afterwards when we are in camera, we do a clause-by-clause study, and amendments are put forward. Moreover, based on what the government says in the House, we can expect amendments.

We heard from witnesses earlier. There are 30 million people in Canada and we should be able to find someone. Even among people who work for the Commissioner or the Auditor General, there must be some bilingual individuals. I would like to know what you think about people in acting positions. Should they be bilingual? Do you accept that for two, three or six months, Canadians should be deprived of a bilingual individual if the person appointed on an interim basis is not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Be brief, Ms. Kenny.

[Marie-France Kenny]

We are concerned about this, as well. It is important to remember that the position, and not the person, is designated bilingual. If the position is designated bilingual, it is designated bilingual, whether the position is being filled on an interim basis or permanently. The obligations are the same. Managers must serve their staff and, when they are in a position permanently or on an acting basis, they have to speak to Canadians and clients. The designation remains the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Before I give the floor to Mr. Trottier, I would like to mention that the bells will start to ring at 5:15 p.m., but the vote will begin at 5:45 p.m. Therefore, our meeting will go until 5:30 p.m. because it doesn't take 15 minutes to walk to the House of Commons.

Okay, so we'll sit until 5:30, and we'll continue with Mr. Trottier.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to talk about the list of positions. I want to point out something interesting. There are 10 positions, but only eight of them are officers of Parliament. I don't know if you are aware of that, but the first eight are officers of Parliament, but the other two, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the President of the Public Service are not officers are Parliament. That might be why the words "officers of Parliament" do not appear in this bill. I think it is important to be clear because this is legislation we are working on.

The bill has not yet been adopted and we are already talking about names. My question is for both groups. The list isn't limited to officers of Parliament. In this case, are we running a risk if we are adding more and more positions? Obviously, there are already two positions that are not officers of Parliament. I would like your comments on this because, Ms. Kenny, during your presentation, you spoke about the president of the CRTC and the president and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada. Perhaps there are other positions we are thinking of that are not officers of Parliament.

[Marie-France Kenny]

I don't think there's a risk. I think the Governor in Council is in a position to make good choices and to designate new positions. I don't think designating a position bilingual is a risk. The risk would be not to designate a position bilingual. Names could be added to the list, if appropriate, absolutely. The danger would be in removing positions when we live in a bilingual country.

In my opinion, there is an obligation to serve the public and speak to the public in the language of their choice. I'm talking about key positions in the government, if we don't want to use the term officer of Parliament. These positions are ultimately there for the public. Perhaps I'm in my own little bubble, but I think the Auditor General works for me, and for Mr. Thompson. It is important to remember that.

I don't think it's a risk to add names. The risk is not having enough of them.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Before you reply, Mr. Thompson, I would like to clarify one point.

What we risk is government by order in council. When we want to change legislation, it has to be submitted to Parliament. That is why I am asking the question. I am told that additions could be made to the list through an order in council. We need to be able to hold a debate in Parliament to determine whether it is really necessary for the incumbent to be bilingual, whether the position really requires it. I am thinking for instance of the head of the RCMP.

[Marie-France Kenny]

Mr. Trottier, I have never seen a case where it was deemed unnecessary to staff a position designated as bilingual with a bilingual person. In my opinion, if the governor in council thinks that a position should be designated bilingual, it is because it has done its homework. May I point out that it is somewhat more difficult to get a position staffed by a bilingual person than it is to have a unilingual person become the incumbent. Within this Parliament and the succession of those we have seen since the implementation of the Official Languages Act, it has always been difficult to have a bilingual person appointed to certain key positions.

Consequently, if the governor in council says that the person must be bilingual, it is because it has done its work. I do not think that a government would randomly decide to designate positions as bilingual without a valid reason.

However, if we wait and if we have to have the legislation amended every time, it is going to take forever to have bilingual people appointed to designated bilingual positions.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Thompson or Mr. Shea.

[James Shea, Member, Board of Directors, Quebec Community Groups Network]

It's clear that if there are going to be additional positions, then within the spirit of the law, truly they should be bilingual, as we have stated from the beginning. That's our position.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Do you have any thoughts on whether it should take the Governor in Council or an act of Parliament to change the list?

[James Shea]

That's a procedure with which I'm not totally familiar, so I guess I would leave it to your table to answer that.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay, thank you.

That's all I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Dion, you have the floor.

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

I would like to thank both groups of witnesses.

Thank you so much for being here with us.

My question is somewhat on the same topic.

In the second paragraph, after the word « Whereas », they refer to

“the institutions of Parliament”.

In the fourth paragraph, after the word « Whereas », they talk about

“persons appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament...“.

So there is something vague there. As was just pointed out, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the president of the Public Service Commission are not really institutions of Parliament. The public service is not either. It is part of the executive branch.

Ms. Kenny, you suggest that the chair of the CRTC and the president of the CBC be added to the list, and they are clearly not agents of Parliament. They would be very surprised to be told that they were, and everyone else would be as well.

Does this vagueness bother you? Are you suggesting that these matters be clarified, or, on the contrary, do you think that this is a creative vagueness? I am putting my question to both groups.