Mr. Chair, I would like to add something that I consider important.
I don't know if you recall, but we had already asked that a study be done on the Maritime Rescue Sub-Centre in Quebec City, and the government refused. I remember that at the time, Mr. Gourde said that it was up to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans to conduct this study, not our committee. I would like to give some information to the public on this subject. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans had requested the same thing, and its request was turned down. This is the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and it is up to our committee to conduct this study, because it concerns language. It does not concern people's skills at sea and that type of thing, but rather language and communication with fishers.
The accident in Tabusintac cost the lives of three fishers. People called Halifax and were told "I don't speak French." It took six calls before they were able to speak to someone in French. The man was not trying to be difficult; some of his colleagues were drowning.
If ever there was an incident on the St. Lawrence and someone somewhere in Canada answered a distress call by saying "I don't speak French," I would not want to be in the Conservatives' shoes. They had better not shed crocodile tears in the House of Commons when we ask questions about accidents that cost people their lives, and they had better not say that that is not the place to discuss it. And that is not a threat, it is a promise. I can guarantee you that they will be held fully accountable for the loss of life, if, one day, someone on the St. Lawrence makes a distress call that is transferred to Trenton or Halifax, where the sub-centres are being transferred, and is told: "I'm sorry, I don't speak French". That is currently the case with Service Canada. Whether you call Halifax, St. John's, or Newfoundland and Labrador, the answer is the same.
As members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we have responsibilities. I would like the government to answer a question. Mr. Gourde said earlier that the minister cannot appear before the committee on December 11, but could she come after the holidays? Is she going to appear or will the government simply refuse by saying that it is making the changes required and it is doing what it is supposed to do? If that is the case, then what purpose do Parliament and parliamentary committees serve? Why do we conduct studies?
Our committee has a fundamental responsibility, which is to put questions to witnesses. I want people from Quebec City, experts on the St. Lawrence River, to be able to have their say. Based on that, the government can make a decision and assume the consequences.
If the government maintains its decision, makes the change and sends people to Halifax, it had better be prepared for the consequences, because I guarantee that we will not accept loss of life because of language issues, here in Canada. The law is clear: both languages are equal. Despite that, that was not the case in Tabusintac. The fishers had to call Halifax, but there were no services in French there. Try telling our families that there are no emergency services in French in a country like ours, when such services should be provided. Someone is going to have to take responsibility and face the consequences.
If the minister cannot appear before the committee on December 11, then can the government move an amendment to set a date for her to appear in mid-February or mid-March? Nothing is going to happen before then. They need to give us a date when she can appear so we can discuss this matter. I want the government to think about certain things. Why don't we conduct a study on this? Why can't we have experts come and testify before the committee? What is the government afraid of? Is it just a matter of saving money? People's lives are at stake. So it is not a question of saving money, far from it.
I have said enough about this. I want the government to reconsider its decision. If it thinks that the minister cannot appear before committee on December 11, it can always move an amendment, but it must ensure that she comes to testify at some point. I would even say that we should invite experts; that is what the committee wants. The change that was made represents a fundamental problem. They want to close the only francophone centre in Canada, which, in addition, is bilingual. It is pathetic.
There was an incident involving a sailboat that was heading for Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon. The call was received in Boston, then transferred to Halifax, then transferred back to Boston, before it ended up in Quebec City. Only the people in Quebec were able to answer in French and help these people.
It's the only francophone centre in Canada. What's the problem? Why pick on this one? I am sorry, but the committee does not often study situations involving the closing of English centres whose calls would be redirected towards a francophone region where nobody speaks English.
In 2013, we should not have to talk about this kind of thing anymore. The government should have a conscience and state that the reason we don't need to talk about these things anymore is because the government will look after the situation, and make sure that both languages are treated equally, and that services are provided equally in both languages.
However, since June 2011, we have not been able to find people with the necessary skills to work in these call centres. There is one thing that scares me. Imagine if you finally found qualified people, but that six months later, three or four of them decided to quit their job to work elsewhere. And then what? It would not be possible to reopen the centre in Quebec, because the employees and the experts would have left. In the meantime, what can we do? Who will answer the phone?
You are carrying a burden on your shoulders which is not justified. As far as I am concerned, I would not want to carry that burden.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.