Official Languages Committee on April 16th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Gourde, could you move your amendment?

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

Once again, I move the amendment. As you can see in the proposed amendments, I would like to strike the following words from clause 2:

...English and French without the aid of an interpreter and to express himself or herself clearly in...

We would stop there and add, or rather introduce the following paragraph:

Any person appointed to any of the following offices must, at the time of his or her appointment, be able to speak and understand both official languages:

I do not know how we are studying it, but all the paragraphs from (a) to (j) remain intact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay, we have an amendment in front of the committee. The amendment is as Mr. Gourde has outlined.

Is there any debate on the amendment?

Monsieur Godin.

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

Before starting debate, Mr. Chair, I would like to clarify matters.

Mr. Gourde repeated his amendment. I understand from the amendment he has given us that he introduced the following wording:

...English and French without the aid of an interpreter and to express himself or herself clearly in...

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

No, I said I was striking that.

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

You are not just striking the interpreter idea, but also the words "without the aid of an interpreter"?

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

Yes, because I am restarting the sentence with "Any person appointed to any of the following offices".

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

So from what I understand, the document we have here is really the amendment. You are striking everything and replacing it.

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

That is correct.

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

All right.

Mr. Chair, we saw during debate that the people on the government side had a problem with the words "without the aid of an interpreter". Here we have an amendment in which they want to strike those words and to change clause 2. They also want to strike the words "to express himself or herself clearly". I thought they would at least leave that.

We have heard evidence from the people from the FCFA, from the QCGN, which represents Quebec's anglophone minorities, and especially from the Commissioner of Official Languages. The commissioner said that he would not want to have to be accompanied by an interpreter at a meeting.

The government people talked about the letter from the Canadian Association of the Deaf. We received it too. We also requested an interpretation, and I was pleased to see that a distinction was drawn in the response that we received between "interpreter" and "translator". Translators really deal with documents, with written texts.

I remember that, when we previously attended conventions where there were interpreters, every time we used the word "translators", they came to see us during the break and told us, not in an unkind way, that they were interpreters, not translators, that is to say that they dealt with people, not with written texts. Even the commissioner pointed out that translators worked with documents, whereas interpreters interpreted the comments made by people.

This issue was a concern for the group that sent us the letter, Mr. Chair. I do not think that changes matters, but the fact remains that it is clear. Agents of Parliament will not start travelling with interpreters. If we have this act, it will be so that officers of Parliament are definitely bilingual enough to discuss matters, speak fluently, make themselves understood and understand others.

Considering everything we have heard, I would like Mr. Gourde to explain to us what the government feels is causing a problem in this regard.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay.

Mr. Gourde, you are not required to respond, but you may do so if you wish.

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

I will be pleased to respond to Mr. Godin.

I believe that the meaning of the words "able to speak and understand both official languages" is clear and broad enough to allow the necessary latitude. As the commissioner said, he can consult his assistants if he needs help in understanding a legal or other term.

In our view, the words "able to speak and understand both official languages" make matters entirely clear. However, if we include the words "without the aid of an interpreter", but the individual requests assistance, he or she could be dismissed. That individual could be forced to resign for requesting assistance once a year. It could go that far. I believe that is excessive in view of the difficulty we have finding people of this calibre to occupy agent of Parliament offices.

I believe our proposal is clear and can make the bill livable.

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

I understand the argument—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Godin, Mr. Benskin has—

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

I had not yet given up my turn, but if time is up, that is fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Benskin, do you want to comment?

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Sure.

I'm looking at the Official Languages Act right now. Section 16 states:

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;

It goes on, and then paragraph (b) is on French.

So this already exists in the Official Languages Act. The example you're putting forward is a bit weird. I'm sorry, but very often in the English language, I will say “What is this word in English” or “What do you think”. When we're talking about legislation, the difference between “the”, “if”, “and”, and “or” is huge. The difference between “and” and “or” is huge if you are a lawyer in a court.

What you're presenting, the essence of what you're putting forward, is not interpretation in terms of understanding the language. The essence of what you're putting forward is the legal interpretation of a word.

What this covers is basically, as the commissioner agreed with when I put the example forward, that if, for one example or another, the Auditor General is in Quebec, for example, and is doing a study or work out in the field, and both anglophones and francophones are speaking to him, he or she has to have the ability to understand, not just to speak the language, but to comprehend what is being said. That is what this is covering.

I'm not really understanding where.... It's like apples and oranges that you're putting out there. I don't know if you can explain that a bit more.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. Thank you.

Madame Michaud.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I want to continue a little further in the same vein. In fact, they are seeking more flexibility in a bill that defends one of the fundamental principles of our country: bilingualism.

We have seen what has come from flexibility. We have a unilingual anglophone Auditor General who currently would be unable to answer my questions. Earlier Mr. Fraser mentioned that he sometimes got help from someone to clarify a term. Yet he has not lost his position; his term has even been renewed. So I do not believe there is a major problem in that regard.

I want to mention another problem. My colleague has just read us a passage from the Official Languages Act. When I read the proposed amendment, I see it dilutes what that act provides. We are losing the continuity that we have in our way of defending and promoting bilingualism.

What act will take precedence if we wind up with another case like that of the Auditor General? In that case, we used flexibility and wound up with someone who can pronounce only every second word in his second language.

This amendment is not clear. It does not deal with the quality of skills at all. We are really diluting the objective we aim to achieve. I do not understand why we would want to leave loopholes—I am using an English word, but I hope you will not doubt the quality of my French. We are adding loopholes to the bill that could cause us more problems like the one we have experienced with the Auditor General.

So if the government really wants to promote official languages and to avoid a situation like the one we had with the Auditor General, I do not understand why we should dilute what is already clearly stated in the Official Languages Act and which already works very well.

We thought that was enough before we had a unilingual Auditor General. Here we are required to introduce a bill to solve problems that we have had. And they are trying to dilute it in a way that is not consistent with the Official Languages Act? I would like someone to explain to me the reasoning behind that because I do not understand it at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

All right, thank you.

Mr. Dionne Labelle, you have the floor.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I am quite surprised by the scope of the amendment. I knew from the comments you made that the interpreter issue was a problem for you. However, if we strike the words "speak and understand", it will not be precise enough. The quality of the ability to speak and understand was specified by those words. I would find it unacceptable to remove them completely.

As for striking the words "without the aid of an interpreter", Mr. Gourde, I believe you are depriving yourselves of a privilege, that of being able to meet with the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer of the Privacy Commissioner and to speak to them privately without an interpreter. That is a privilege. If I wanted to speak to the Chief Electoral Officer to clarify some matters with him, I would have to have access to him without needing an interpreter around me.

Under this amendment, we are depriving ourselves of that. This is an amendment that limits the rights of members and parliamentarians. I hope you are aware of that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Trottier, you have the floor.

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

I'll just add, Mr. Chair, that the language about the ability to understand and speak both official languages is pretty common in many pieces of legislation. I understand the Official Languages Act uses “without the assistance of an interpreter” but the language that we are proposing is very common in other statutes also.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Trottier.

If no one else has any interventions on this amendment in front of us, then I will call the question.

Shall the amendment carry?

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

No.