Official Languages Committee on April 16th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to the 74^th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on this Tuesday, April 16, 2013.

Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, February 27, 2013, we are here to study Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills.

Over the next hour, we will be hearing from Mr. Fraser and Ms. Tremblay from Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Also in front of us today are Madame Charlebois and Monsieur Giguère of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages in Ottawa.

Welcome to all four witnesses.

Before I begin with an opening statement from Mr. Fraser, I understand that Monsieur Godin has a point of order to raise.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Trottier brought the spelling and expressions used in the bill to your attention at a recent meeting of this committee. He referred in particular to differences between the English and French versions. I would therefore like to draw the committee's attention to that point. I believe this is important given that this is in the blues and that it can give the impression that our bill was poorly drafted or that it contains spelling mistakes.

I am going to read you a letter that was sent to Ms. Latendresse by Richard Denis, who is deputy law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons. It states:

I understand that certain questions were raised in committee yesterday about your Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills, particularly concerning matters of language and grammar.

As the officer responsible for the teams of legislative drafters, translators and revisors at the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons who are responsible for drafting private member's bills and amendments to bills, I am writing to assure you that those comments are inaccurate.

All bills prepared by our team are drafted and reviewed by an experienced team of drafting and language professionals for whom quality of work and the satisfaction of our member clients is of the utmost importance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Godin, will you read the letter now?

Could we maybe get to the point about what the point of order is?

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

Yes.

Well, the point of order is what was said here.

It was stated before the witnesses that our bill contained grammatical errors, errors in the use of upper and lower case letters and gender errors.

I simply want to make sure that it is clear in the public's mind that no errors were made and that that statement is supported by Richard Denis. Then I will be able to introduce the letter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

All right. I want to thank you for giving us that point of view, but that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

We will therefore go back to the witnesses.

If you give me the letter, I will get the clerk to make sure it's distributed to all committee members.

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

I appreciate that, and I think the public got the meaning of the letter anyway.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Without further ado, we will begin with an opening statement from Mr. Fraser.

[Graham Fraser, Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, and honourable members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, I'd like to express my thanks for your having me here today and allowing me to speak by video conference. As the Chair said, I'm currently in Winnipeg meeting with Manitoba's francophone community and visiting the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.

I appreciate the steps you are taking to adapt our democratic processes to new technologies, especially when those technologies better serve the needs of federal institutions and result in cost savings for Canadian taxpayers.

I am here with Johane Tremblay, General Counsel. Ghislaine Charlebois, Assistant Commissioner, Compliance Assurance, and Sylvain Giguère, Assistant Commissioner, Policy and Communications, are there with you in Ottawa.

I am addressing you today not only as Commissioner of Official Languages, but also as an agent of Parliament.

Bill C-419, which was put forward by the New Democratic MP for Louis-Saint-Laurent, is to the point and unequivocal. Its purpose is to ensure that persons whose appointment requires the approval by resolution of the Senate, House of Commons, or both Houses of Parliament, can understand and express themselves clearly in both official languages without the aid of an interpreter from the moment they are appointed.

It is an important bill for the future of Canada's Iinguistic duality. I therefore support it unconditionally.

Everyone to whom this bill applies—with the exception of two individuals—is an agent of Parliament. If I may, I will use the expression "agents of Parliament" to refer to the 10 persons covered by the bill to keep things simple.

As you are aware, the controversy surrounding the high-profile appointment of a unilingual anglophone to the position of Auditor General of Canada resonated strongly both with a segment of Canadian public opinion and with the parliamentary committees responsible for reviewing it. Following the appointment, my office received 43 complaints and has conducted an investigation.

I determined that the Privy Council Office had not met its obligations under part VII of the Official Languages Act with respect to the Auditor General's appointment process because it failed to take into account the language requirements under subsection 24(3) of the act, the spirit of parts IV, V, and VII of the act and the specific nature of the roles of agents of Parliament.

Agents of Parliament exert national and sometimes even international influence. They are responsible for monitoring how federal institutions are living up to the obligations that parliamentarians have imposed on them to ensure the integrity of our democratic system. Several of them serve as ombudsmen for the public and as independent and impartial critics of government action for both parliamentarians and the public.

Their job is to provide timely notification of any actual or perceived infringements of the values and rights they are required to protect on behalf of all Canadians. They must report the findings of their work not only to parliamentarians, by publicly tabling their reports and appearing before parliamentary committees, but also to the public through news conferences and media interviews.

Consequently, their office and their public presence have become more visible in recent years. Their interventions thus have a greater impact.

The role played by agents of Parliament is changing. The requirements for independence associated with our positions enable us to carry out the social mission entrusted to us with all the credibility and authority that Canadians expect. As incumbents of these positions, we must demonstrate a high degree of leadership, influence, visibility, and transparency. As Madame Latendresse said in the House of Commons, the presence of unilingual elected MPs in the House is perfectly normal, and just as the government must adapt to the needs of Canadians, Parliament must adapt to the needs of elected MPs, regardless of which official language they use.

Members of Parliament expect—and rightly so—to be able to engage in private conversations with agents of Parliament, and to be understood. These agents must understand and express themselves clearly in both official languages without the aid of a translator or interpreter. Proficiency in French and English is therefore an essential appointment criterion.

This bill is consistent with my own recommendations to the Privy Council Office. The latter must state loudly and clearly that linguistic qualifications deemed to be essential for candidates should not be seen merely as assets.

Accordingly, candidates will be able to take steps to learn their second language in advance. This will also encourage universities to do more in terms of offering second-language programs to students. Indeed, I made a recommendation to the government along those lines in my 2011-12 annual report.

All Canadians—anglophones and francophones—expect senior officials who have to communicate with parliamentarians and Canadians across the country to be bilingual. That was also the position taken by several English-Ianguage dailies during the public debate following the Auditor General's appointment.

During my term of office, I have often said that proficiency in French and English is an essential leadership criteria. The ability of federal institutions to operate efficiently, fulfill their obligations with regard to their employees and the public, and to reflect contemporary Canadian values across the country and abroad depends in good part on the language skills of their leaders.

Furthermore, at the beginning of 2013, my office launched a study to determine how the Privy Council Office establishes the language qualifications for positions whose incumbents are appointed by the Governor in Council. I would be delighted to share the findings with you once the study has been completed.

As Madame Latendresse said, agents of Parliament “have a clear mandate: to uphold, promote and monitor integrity. They have the right to know everything, to ask anything and to understand everything that is happening within their jurisdictions.”

It is critical that we, as agents of Parliament, have the language skills to understand and express ourselves in both official languages without the aid of a translator or interpreter.

Agents of Parliament must demonstrate exemplary leadership. The time when elected MPs had to adapt to the unilingualism of Parliament without citizens questioning the credibility of their government is long gone.

Thank you for your attention. I would now like to use the remaining time to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

We have 50 minutes for questions and comments.

We will begin with Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Mr. Fraser for attending our meeting, along with Ms. Tremblay, Ms. Charlebois and Mr. Giguère, all from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

First of all, Mr. Fraser, I am pleased to hear your comments on the bill concerning agents of Parliament and of the Senate, that is the 10 persons cited in the bill, and the way in which you describe the responsibilities of those people. You said that every parliamentarian should be able to engage in private conversations with those individuals. They are agents of Parliament and of the Senate, not of the government. That also reflects the Official Languages Act.

Unfortunately, we know what has happened. We now have a bill, and the government publicly told us that it would support it. However, rumour had it that there would be amendments. I believe that was clear in committee. For example, they would like to strike the preamble.

The preamble to the bill 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:

That is the preamble. Do you not think it is normal for a bill to have a preamble to assist in interpreting the bill and to indicate where it comes from? It clearly states that these individuals are appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate or the House of Commons and that parliamentarians have a right to use English or French during debates. We are talking about people who have to deal with Parliament. The 10 individuals are people who have to deal with Parliament and who represent it. They are agents of Parliament.

By striking the preamble, we open the door to the possibility that anyone could be included. The government could appoint up to 500 people. They could be presidents of crown corporations. They could be anyone. With the preamble in place, it is clear that we are not talking about them. We are really talking about the 10 individuals who deal with Parliament and the Senate. That is clear; that is why there is a preamble. It is normal for a bill to have a preamble. It conveys an idea and an interpretation of the bill by citing the reasons why it is there.

I would like to hear your comments on that point, Mr. Fraser.

[Graham Fraser]

The Official Languages Act is preceded by a preamble that I very much appreciate. It expresses the spirit of the act and the major underlying ideas. I am in favour of that from the outset, and I have heard no arguments for deleting this preamble.

From a legal standpoint, whether or not the preamble is there does not compromise the bill's legality as such. Since I personally very much appreciate the preamble to the Official Languages Act, I—

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

Let us be clear about this, Mr. Fraser. You say the preamble helps you.

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, the preamble expresses the spirit of the act. Often—

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

It gives the lawyers less work.

[Graham Fraser]

I do not know, I am not a lawyer, but you could put the question to Ms. Tremblay.

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

Mr. Fraser, you said it was clearer.

My second question concerns clause 2 and the concept of "understanding". It states: ...be able to understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and to express himself or herself clearly in both official languages..

Whether people can express themselves clearly in both official languages will depend on a determination of whether they are bilingual or not. However, are you not concerned about the idea of understanding without the aid of an interpreter? An individual might be able to express himself or herself clearly but not understand. However, a person has to understand in order to discharge his or her responsibilities. The idea is not just to be able to say things; you also have to be able to understand them.

The federal Judges Act already provides that judges must be able to do their work without the aid of an interpreter. That is the case at the Federal Court of Appeal. The government thinks that, if they write "without the aid of an interpreter", those people may not even use headphones during meetings. That is not the purpose of the bill. The bill's underlying idea is that someone who is hired should not need the aid of an interpreter. He or she should be capable of understanding and speaking both languages. Otherwise, the bill means nothing.

[Graham Fraser]

The expression "without an interpreter" appears in subsection 16(1) of the Official Languages Act. That section concerns federal courts other than the Supreme Court of Canada. I believe it provides a quite general indication, without being specific or regulatory, in describing adequate linguistic proficiency to do the job. It is not about the level of evaluation. All kinds of methods can be used to determine whether a person is able to do the work without an interpreter.

This is a phrase that has been taken from the Official Languages Act, and I believe it is entirely appropriate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin and Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Fraser, thank you for attending our meeting today.

My first question concerns the preamble. Mr. Godin has said a lot about it. Is the preamble really necessary?

[Graham Fraser]

It is useful. I referred to the use I make of the preamble to the Official Languages Act. It expresses the spirit of the act. I have not heard anyone ask to have the preamble struck. It is practical, and I consider it useful.

I am being a bit vague because I do not understand the nature of this debate since the preamble expresses the purpose of the bill. However, if you have fundamental reasons to believe that it undermines acceptance of the bill, I am prepared to hear arguments on that point. I have not yet heard any.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Its removal does not weaken the bill.

[Graham Fraser]

No, it has no impact on any clause in particular, but it expresses the spirit of the bill, its goals and objectives, so that ordinary people can understand why the bill has been introduced. It also describes the bill's overall aims.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Clause 2 refers to the ability to speak and understand both official languages. That goes without saying. However, it states that one must be able to do so without the aid of an interpreter.

This week, or late last week, the committee received a letter from the Canadian Association of the Deaf, which represents 3.5 million Canadians. That organization sent us a letter saying that it had some reservations about the word "interpreter". If one of the agents of Parliament had an accident or a health problem that caused him or her hearing problems, sometimes that person might not understand certain words.

You can be bilingual and understand both official languages, but you have to think of all the synonyms in the French language. Sometimes you may need an interpreter to explain the synonym so that you can be sure your correctly understand the meaning of a sentence. Those people have to make major decisions.

Could the fact that they never use the services of an interpreter undermine the understanding and even the decisions of those people?

[Graham Fraser]

I do not believe so. For example, I am here with my general counsel. If a term has a particular legal meaning in English or in French, I ask my counsel for help. In general, when there is a problem of understanding or the meaning of words, it is for legal reasons, and sometimes for policy reasons. Mr. Giguère is there to explain the policy implications to me.

Agents of Parliament often need advice, but the language issue is often included in specific competencies, such as legal, policy or compliance assurance competencies. If you say that people can use an interpreter, that indicates that the person does not have sufficient proficiency in the other official language.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Fraser, so you are telling us that, when you are not sure you clearly understand a term in one language, you ask one of your advisors to help you. You just said so. Whether it is an advisor or an interpreter, if you need help in understanding, it is important to get that help so that you are sure of making the right decision.