Official Languages Committee on March 26th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Order, please.

Today is March 26, 2013. Welcome to the 73^rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, February 27, 2013, we are here to study Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills.

Joining us is the member of Parliament for Louis-Saint-Laurent, Ms. Latendresse, who introduced this bill.

Ms. Latendresse, you have the floor.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am very happy to be here today. Of course, it is a bit unusual to be at this end of the table, but I am very pleased to be able to tell you about my bill.

First of all, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Official Languages for the opportunity to clarify my reasons behind Bill C-419 and the impact of the bill on our Parliament.

The unanimous support for this bill at second reading shows that we know how to work together for all Canadians. Bill C-419 is very much in line with the decisions made over the years by various governments to make the Parliament of Canada a bilingual institution.

Although Canada's linguistic duality has caused in the past and still continues to occasionally cause small hitches, it remains one of the main assets of the unshakeable political agreement between all Canadians.

Bill C-419 is one more step in the right direction toward harmony between the two linguistic groups, which we have been trying to establish for over 40 years.

It is with great pride that I bring this one stone to contribute to the consolidation of this great House that we are building together. The Parliament of Canada functions in both official languages. This means that Parliament, as an institution representing the people of Canada, adapts to Canadians and to the people they elect to represent them in the House, the MPs.

Officers of Parliament are an integral part of the great parliamentary machinery and must meet the criteria set out for Parliament. In a bilingual Parliament, bilingualism is an essential skill for those who are part of the inner workings. That is the basic premise of the whole spirit of Bill C-419.

In early November of 2011, the Conservative government nominated New Brunswick native Michael Ferguson to the position of Auditor General of Canada. To everyone's surprise, and furthermore in breach of tradition, it surfaced immediately that Mr. Ferguson was not bilingual, that is to say, he had neither passive nor active skill in one of Canada's two official languages.

I would like to remind the committee that, when the government posted the competition notice, it was clearly indicated that proficiency in both of Canada's official languages was a prerequisite. Bill C-419 would solve the problem that was created by making bilingualism an essential skill for officers of Parliament under the law.

The government has apologized for this unfortunate faux pas, and it is my opinion that the apology was heartfelt. In the long process of making Parliament work for Canadians, tiny glitches are to be expected. They serve a precise purpose, teaching us to learn from our mistakes so that we can forge forward on ground that will be both firmer and better marked.

In recent months I have travelled across Canada to meet with the various actors involved with promoting the rights of Canadians living in linguistic minority environments. I have met with wonderful people in Moncton, St. Boniface, and other places. Every last one of them understood the bilingualism of Parliament to be a given. Their support for Bill C-419 was overwhelmingly enthusiastic.

When I started working on this bill, I had to consider several angles to this situation. As everyone here can easily testify, when language becomes a political issue, emotions quicken. Language lies so close to identity in the human heart that extra efforts are necessary to master oneself when a slight is perceived, be it genuine or imaginary. Sensibilities are so easily hurt that every last word must be chosen carefully.

Among the factors that contributed to the direction of my work on this bill, one factor kept coming back to me and I felt it was more significant than all the others. I remembered the outstanding work of former Auditor General Sheila Fraser.

She was fully bilingual and was able to understand everything without the help of an interpreter. When she was digging deeper into the scandal whose epicentre was in Quebec, if she had needed things to be translated all the time, I think that would have had a negative impact on her work.

Imagine for a second what it would be like if the Auditor General of Canada did not understand a word of English. How much would his work slow down if he relied on interpretation at every stage? Such a thing is inconceivable because it is so absurd.

The institution of the Parliament of Canada belongs to Canadians and, as a mirror of our democratic will, it must reflect our country and its linguistic duality. Everyone agrees on that. We now have an opportunity to take our decision one step further. That was my intention with Bill C-419.

To conclude, I believe that honourable committee members have already understood the positive impact of this bill for the furthering of our goals as a country.

I look forward to hearing any questions this committee may wish to ask.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. Latendresse.

We will now hear from Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank my colleague Ms. Latendresse for her presentation on Bill C-419.

Ms. Latendresse, I would like to look at a few of the clauses in the bill to see how far we can go with it. My other colleagues also have some questions.

The preamble of Bill C-419 reads as follows:

Whereas the Constitution provides that English and French are the official languages of Canada;

Whereas English and French have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of Parliament;

Whereas members of the Senate and the House of Commons have the right to use English or French during parliamentary debates and proceedings;

And whereas persons appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament must be able to communicate with members of those Houses in both official languages;

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

Why did you include that preamble in the bill?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

First of all, the preamble is important because it provides a more concrete explanation of why this bill was introduced. Basically, it has an interpretive value for courts that may need to study this piece of legislation. The part that talks about the persons appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament is the cornerstone for determining the positions that must be bilingual. I think the preamble plays a major role in helping to interpret what an officer of Parliament is. In the future, if there are new officers of Parliament, this can help to determine which positions to add.

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

That means that parliamentarians have the right to be served in the language of their choice, meaning one of the two official languages, and that officers of Parliament must be bilingual so that parliamentarians can receive that service, correct?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Yes, absolutely. Parliamentarians can choose to use either English or French. They can do whatever they want in Parliament in either of the two languages, and they will be supported.

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

Having a preamble to a bill is not new.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Absolutely not. It is quite common. In addition, that can be of great help to those who must interpret the legislation. The preamble can be very useful.

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

Clause 2 on language skills says: “... be able to understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter...”. This refers to the appointment of an officer of Parliament. When it says “without the aid of an interpreter”, that does not mean that the Auditor General will not be allowed to use the services of interpreters if he comes to a committee meeting. That is not what that means, right?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

No, not at all. Actually, when someone's skills are assessed in one of the two languages, they must be able to understand what is being said without the aid of an interpreter. That does not mean that the person is not allowed to use an interpreter.

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

Why did you use the words “without the aid of an interpreter” in your bill?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Actually, that is what the Official Languages Act says in reference to appointments to federal courts. It is subsection 16(1). I can read it to you.

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

Yes, please.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Subsection 16(1) reads as follows:

Every federal court, other than the Supreme Court of Canada, has the duty to ensure that:

(a) if English is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand English without the assistance of an interpreter;

(b) if French is the language chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand French without the assistance of an interpreter; and

(c) if both English and French are the languages chosen by the parties for proceedings conducted before it in any particular case, every judge or other officer who hears those proceedings is able to understand both languages without the assistance of an interpreter.

We are talking about understanding the language, not about the fact that the person will never be allowed to use an interpreter. It is important that those people understand what is being said without the assistance of an interpreter.

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

I think the government has already said in the House of Commons that it agrees with the 10 positions listed in your bill. We will see this later on.

Clause 3, entitled “Regulations”, states:

The Governor in Council may, by order, add offices to the list established in section 2.

Why does it have to be the Governor in Council?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

We thought it was a good idea to have the Governor in Council. In fact, if new positions for officers of Parliament are created, it is essential to add them to the list as soon as possible. If the government recognizes that bilingualism is very important for the 10 positions listed, I don't see why a new officer of Parliament would not be added to the list right away.

So the reason why we decided to grant this power to the Governor in Council was simply to make the process of adding people to the list easier and faster.

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

But currently, the Governor in Council has the power to appoint new officers.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Yes, absolutely.

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

The Governor in Council appoints an officer and then seeks the approval of the House and the Senate. That is exactly what happened recently with the Commissioner of Official Languages. He has been in office for seven years and his mandate was extended by three years. The government appointed him and his appointment was then submitted to the committee and the House of Commons for approval. But it is still the Governor in Council that appointed him.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

It was the one who made the decision initially. We can easily ask ourselves why it would not be able to simply add positions if it so wishes. We have no objection to giving this power to the Governor in Council.

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

Furthermore, this is what you say about the interim appointment: 4. 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.

Appointments do not necessarily take place every seven years. My understanding is that, if someone hands in their resignation, the person replacing them in the interim must be bilingual.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

I think there are enough people who speak both languages in our country that we can find a bilingual person to be appointed in the interim. I don't think this is a problem.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.