Official Languages Committee on April 16th, 2013

[Graham Fraser]

If it were amended in 10 or 15 years to affect other positions that had been created by Parliament, it would be really useful to have the preamble set out the purpose of this legislation. Having said that, as a former journalist and as a non-lawyer, I will ask Maître Tremblay to contribute to your understanding of this.

[Johane Tremblay, Director and General Counsel, Legal Affairs Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages]

My answer would be that as a lawyer I don't know what else I could add to what Mr. Fraser just said.

I would only say that a preamble is not necessary, but it provides information about the scope of the bill. Also, it provides directions to the Governor in Council. If the Governor in Council adopts regulations to add some position, then the preamble circumscribes the discretion of the government as to the position it would like to add to the list of the 10 positions. It provides the intent of the legislator and defines the scope of the Governor in Council's power to add positions to the list.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

I was just asking...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...rights and freedoms. It is so evident in this case that it seems to obviate the need to have something that is reinforcing something which everybody ought to know.

I have another question. Which statutes, policies, and directives will be affected by Bill C-419? Let's say that the bill is accepted. What other policies and what other repercussions will we have in other legislation?

[Graham Fraser]

Well, there would be a requirement in the nomination process for the 10 positions that are affected. Whether this would require a specific amendment to the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act, our legal advice is that no, that requirement is not there. This is a requirement that will bind Parliament and bind the government in proposing nominees to Parliament for these positions, which need to be ratified by a vote of either one or both Houses.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Finally, the last question is regarding clause 4, which is speaking about the incumbent. Probably it would be clearer to have the second-in-command have the same qualifications as the person who has the position; I don't know.

Would this be a change requiring additional legislation? How can we deal with this?

[Graham Fraser]

Well, I think that in almost all of the organizations that are mentioned in the bill, the senior people who work in the organization are public servants. They are public servants who are at a level in the public service in which they are required to be bilingual. I think in practical terms what this means is that in the case of an unexpected absence or resignation by someone who was an agent of Parliament, rather than name someone from outside the organization, there would be an interim role played by somebody who was in the organization, who was a public servant and who met the language requirements of the senior public service.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser and Mr. Chisu.

Mr. Benskin.

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

Thank you.

Thanks to all of you for appearing here today.

I've been listening to the conversation, and it's ironic, because there's a lot of conversation about interpretation and assuming that something should happen because it's common sense. I'm a firm believer in common sense, but as we saw with the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General, common sense doesn't always prevail. When we asked about it, we got answers such as “he was hired on his merits”. I've met him. He's a very nice man and a very smart man.

I have a quick question on the issue of qualifications for agents, which this bill is trying to address. Do you agree or disagree that proficient language skills should be considered a merit in terms of a hiring policy for the government?

[Graham Fraser]

I think in terms of the positions that are identified in this piece of legislation, they should be more than a merit. They should be essential criteria. The government needs to ensure that when something is identified as an essential criteria that in fact the people who are named actually meet those essential criteria.

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

Thank you.

In essence, we're basically saying that Bill C-419 helps to clarify the responsibilities of the government as far as these agents of Parliament are concerned, that their language proficiency should be such that they could go outside their office and be able to have a conversation without having somebody interpret their conversation in the field, which is what clause 2 alludes to. Would you say that would be a fair interpretation?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

[Graham Fraser]

As an agent of Parliament, I find there are two areas in which mastery of both official languages is essential for me. One is to communicate with members of this committee in either official language, in the language of choice of the members of the committee, or else to communicate with the general public, who want to be able to communicate with me in their language of choice, and also, as somebody who has been given leadership responsibilities, to be able to communicate with my employees in their language of choice.

I said at the beginning that there were two areas, but actually, those three leadership qualities all require bilingualism as an essential quality: an ability to deal with parliamentarians, an ability to deal with the general public, and an ability to deal with one's own employees.

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

I would like to discuss a clarification made by clause 4. It concerns a vacancy in any of those offices. One might think that the government would fill that position in a sensible manner.

It's common sense to replace that person with somebody who is bilingual, but again, practice has not shown that.

Do you believe that clause 4 clarifies the government's obligations with respect to interim appointments?

[Graham Fraser]

I think it reinforces the idea that this is an essential not a non-essential condition. For some government positions, it can be said that a master's degree or doctorate is an asset, without being a requirement. In this case, I believe this should be a requirement. That is one way of saying that it is an essential skill.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Benskin.

Madame Bateman.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a brief question.

First of all, Ms. Latendresse, I would like to congratulate you because we support the concept you presented. Thank you for that.

Thank you for appearing before us, commissioner and Ms. Tremblay.

My question is more important for Ms. Michaud and me than for all the other committee members. I would like to talk about clause 2, more specifically about titles such as that of the Auditor General. It does not include the feminine version, "vérificatrice générale". We have previously discussed that difference. I am the mother of a 15-year-old girl, and I hope there will always be room for young women in the public service and that they will always have the opportunity to be agents of Parliament. I have heard that the choice of words in the French versions of bills is very important. In fact, a note on the Department of Justice Canada's website states that the use of gender-neutral language in French in bills is very important.

I would like to have your opinion on the subject because our country includes everyone.

[Graham Fraser]

The debate on French-language titles is quite intense. In France, for example, they say "Madame le ministre", and we in Canada say "Madame la ministre". One of the rules of the French language that I learned is that, if you employ the plural, you use the masculine.

That is an example of the importance of legal terminology and of explanations of the differences between the English and French versions of a bill.

I am going to ask Ms. Tremblay, my office's general counsel, to provide a viewpoint on the feminization of titles.

[Johane Tremblay]

Thank you very much. Unfortunately, I am not a legal drafter or an expert in the drafting of statutes. So I am not in a position to offer an opinion on how a legislator should or should not name the positions set out in clause 2.

I understand your point of view on the matter of the feminization of terminology, but unfortunately I do not at all have the expertise to answer your question.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I understand, but I have to explain your answer to my daughter. Perhaps I should say "mon fille". I am joking.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. Bateman.

Mr. Dionne Labelle now has the floor.

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

Good afternoon. I found your presentation very interesting. You said: "Bill C-419, which was put forward by the NDP MP for Louis-Saint-Laurent, is to the point and unequivocal."

I have been hearing comments that cast doubt on certain parts of the bill since we started discussing it. I personally think that the bill is very well balanced and that the preamble is necessary. The preamble enables us to understand why these people appear on this list.

In your presentation, however, you talked about parliamentarians' privilege or prerogative to have a private conversation with agents of Parliament. I want to make the connection between that prerogative and the question whether it is necessary to have an interpreter. As a parliamentarian, I want to be able to have a private conversation with the Auditor General or the people on that list without needing an interpreter. Is that the sense of what you are saying?

[Graham Fraser]

Yes, indeed. One of the things I have greatly appreciated as an agent of Parliament is the opportunity I have had to have one-on-one lunches with committee members in which we have been able to share our opinions in a frank and open manner. It would have been a completely different experience if those conversations had had to take place in my first language rather than in the first language of the members concerned, or if those meetings had involved three people instead of two, with an interpreter present during the discussion.

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

Do you think this bill will be an important statutory measure in reinforcing the legislative apparatus protecting bilingualism in Canada?