Official Languages Committee on April 18th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to the 75th meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on this Thursday, April 18, 2013.

We are here pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 27, 2013 to consider Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills.

Right now, we're in clause-by-clause consideration and we will begin where we left off last meeting, which is in debate on clause 4.

I will give the floor to Monsieur Godin.

(On clause 4—Interim appointment)

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I said all I had to say about clause 4 on Tuesday. I cannot believe the government wants to strike this clause, the principle of which is that the persons appointed on an interim basis to an agent of Parliament office, or to one of the 10 offices set out in the bill, must be bilingual. It is simply brushing aside this clause respecting interim appointments.

This is important in our view. The Commissioner of Official Languages said the same thing. Even the QCGN was clear on the matter: either you are bilingual or you are not; either you accept bilingualism or you do not. Even that group of Quebec anglophones has strongly accepted it, as has the francophone group the FCFA.

That is our position, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Does anyone else have any comments?

Mr. Dion, you have the floor.

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

I agree. I do not see why the government party wants to do this kind of thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

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

I want to note that the addition of this language requirement for interim appointments, which sometimes must be made quickly, may cause problems. We believe we must allow flexibility so that institutions can operate properly. That is why we will vote against clause 4.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

All right, thank you.

Mr. Dion, you have the floor.

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

I would like to ask the following question.

What are the—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Please address your question to the chair.

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask the following question. What other examples can be cited of differences in skills between the person who occupies an office on an interim basis and the incumbent? The country must have these agents; someone always occupies these positions. A person is said to be in a position on an interim basis because that person is not appointed to the office on a permanent basis. During the interim appointment, the individual is supposed to be up to the same standard as the other person, the one who will occupy the office permanently.

Is there anything, any right, law or regulation, that permits the person who occupies the office on an interim basis to be less qualified than the incumbent?

That is a question I am putting to the government party.

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

The answer is the same, Mr. Chair.

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

I believe that will raise a legal problem with regard to the act and that you are exposing yourselves to lawsuits. The country must have agents of Parliament who have consistent skill levels. Even if you appoint an individual to an office on an interim basis, that individual is not supposed to be less qualified than the incumbent.

I believe you would have lawsuits on your hands if you ever appointed a unilingual person on an interim basis. The act could be open to challenges. That is what I believe, Mr. Chair. I think this is a valid objection and I would like to have a response. Perhaps we should take the time to consider the matter before submitting a bill that could be challenged to our colleagues in the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I see no further debate. I'm going to call the question now.

So everyone's clear, members of the committee have a number of choices. They can amend the clause. They can allow the clause to stand, which means that we'll come back to it later for consideration. They can allow the clause to be adopted as it is written, or they can negative the clause.

If you indicate yea, I will interpret that as meaning you are in favour of adopting the clause as it is. If you indicate nay, I will interpret that as your wanting to negative the clause.

Mr. Godin has requested a recorded division. I therefore hand the floor over to the clerk.

(Clause 4 negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The clause will be removed from the bill when it is reported back to the House.

Shall the short title carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

We will now go to consideration of the preamble.

Are there any comments or questions on the preamble?

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I see the direction the government is taking once again. You know, this is not the first bill to have a preamble. It explains the bill. The Commissioner of Official Languages said it clearly: it helps ordinary people understand why the act exists. That is what the preamble provides. It also states who these people are who are appointed by resolution of the Senate or the House.

The government said this week that it was simply something repetitive and that it could be read elsewhere. I would like to say that there is nothing better than a clear act. In this case, I absolutely cannot see where the government is headed with this.

We would like to retain the preamble for the good of ordinary people. At least they will have access to the record and will be able to read this in the preamble:

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

Why would the government be opposed to that?

The preamble then states:

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

I cannot see how that can pose a problem.

The preamble continues as follows:

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

I do not see a problem there either.

The preamble also states:

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;

I do not think any parliamentarian wants to be unable to speak his or her own official language. That is the power that Parliament has given us.

The preamble ends with the following words:

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

Our position is to vote in favour of the preamble.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Trottier, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Even the commissioner said that the preamble served to provide a framework for clause 3, which was somewhat unlimited. I am talking about the number of positions that could be added to that list. Since clause 3 has been stricken, we no longer need the preamble, which merely repeats things that are stated in the Constitution. That is why we can shorten the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Merci.

I want to let members know that they have been given a copy of the proposed change from Mr. Gourde and Mr. Trottier. I want to make sure that we're all aware of that.

I further want to indicate that if this change is to be adopted by the committee, it is simply by a negativing of the preamble. In other words, the paragraph that begins with “Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada enacts as follows” is not considered part of the preamble. If the preamble is struck, that paragraph will remain in the bill.

I am talking about the paragraph that begins with "Now, therefore, Her Majesty".

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

So this one will remain; I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

That's right.

That remains the same if the preamble is stricken by the committee.

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We will go to Mr. Benskin first.

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

In the last meeting, I think it was Mr. Chisu who had asked why we need a preamble. There are preambles in other parts of the language act, so why do we need one here?

I think it's important to have this preamble to reiterate and to encapsulate what this bill is supposed to be about. To take a preamble from another bill and try to apply it, or to take the intention of another bill or another part of the act and apply it to this.... Never mind the legal consequences that might arise, two different parts of the act have two different meanings.

I think this reiterates the importance of this bill and why this bill was brought forward in the first place. It reiterates—or it should—this committee's stance and the government's stance on linguistic duality and the importance of having, in particular, these designated positions as agents of Parliament, which is what this bill is about.

I think we run into the same problem we had prior to this bill, where assumptions are made that it makes sense that this should happen or it makes sense for that to happen. We saw with the engagement of a unilingual auditor general that common sense doesn't always prevail.

This is a guideline. This is a means of saying not only to this government but to future governments that this is the intent of both this bill and the language act. This is to remind us and help us get to a point where we don't make that same mistake again. I think it's our job as legislators to do that, to think forward in that respect. I think the preamble does outline the purpose and give a wider scope or a wider understanding of what the purpose of Bill C-419 is.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Is there any further debate?

We will hear from Ms. Michaud, and then Mr. Dion.

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

Thank you.

I want to repeat what my colleague so eloquently said. This is another attempt to water down the bill that has been introduced here. Quite honestly, I have heard no valid argument for striking the preamble. The commissioner said the same thing when he testified before us; that is to say that he had heard no valid argument from the government or anyone else that would justify striking it. He gave the same response when he left us: he still had not heard any valid argument that would justify striking the preamble.

I unfortunately have no choice but to suspect a lack of political will to promote bilingualism as it should be promoted. If one does not even dare reaffirm basic principles such as the importance of bilingualism in our country, if one votes against those principles and strikes them from the bill, what does that show?

The commissioner clearly said that the preamble had an interpretative value and that its purpose was not to provide a framework for clause 3 or anything else. It provides a little more material for legal experts and people who will have to interpret this act as part of their work.

The arguments heard to date are not valid. I am not the only person who has said so. Several stakeholders mentioned it before this committee. I find it extremely unfortunate that we have come to this pass and that we, all parties together, can no longer even affirm the importance that we attach to bilingualism. This is extremely disappointing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

Mr. Dion, you have the floor.