Official Languages Committee on April 13th, 2016

[Suzanne Bossé]

We have not heard about a legal opinion on this. As the Commissioner of Official Languages said a few years ago, there is an erosion of tools related to official languages. Whether this is due to Treasury Board or another entity, there has been an erosion in training programs. Moreover, with the renewal of the public service — whether we like it or not, in fact, since 2012, especially in the wake of the budget cuts, there has been a big turnover in the public service — we are in the presence of a new generation which has neither the training, nor the tools, nor even the awareness needed regarding this topic. In that way, our recommendations on training and awareness-raising are important.

French is a rich and very nuanced language. That is why, on the website of a department as important as the Immigration Department, we do not want to read “nouveaux arrivés” instead of “nouveaux arrivants”. And yet the term “nouveaux arrivés” was the one that was used recently on the Immigration Canada website. And there were other similar terms. Whether we are talking about the citizen, the person we are receiving, the public servant who works in that language or, as madam said, the country as a whole, I think that the French language really merits our full attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault. That was an excellent question.

I am going to ask the clerk to put the question to the lawyers of Justice Canada so that we may obtain a reply.

As I was saying, we are somewhat pressed for time. So we are going to move on to Mr. Vandal's motion.

The clerk tells me that you received it on Monday. It reads as follows:

That the committee undertake a study to examine the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018, as well as the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013, particularly in their effects on English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada; that the committee identify initiatives and opportunities for the next Official Languages Plan to support and enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and foster the full recognition of both English and French in Canadian society; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

Mr. Vandal, you have the floor.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

I think it is time we were proactive in preparing the next official languages plan. I think we must also evaluate the two previous roadmaps.

Good work has no doubt been done, but things are not perfect. It is important that we consult the official language minority communities, discuss things with them, listen to them and note their recommendations.

I suggest that we begin this process in the month of June, that we hold consultations and perhaps visit official language minority communities. The chair of the committee and I are going to work together to prepare a schedule for June or September.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Mr. Vandal.

Mr. Généreux, you have the floor.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I want to be sure I understood correctly.

The motion says: “That the committee undertake a study to examine the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018, [...]”

Mr. Vandal, the roadmap is not completely finished. There are still two years left. Our objective is to analyze what has been done over the past three years with the roadmap that is already in place. The roadmap's implementation is not complete. It is still ongoing. You want the committee to analyze what is being done currently. I am trying to understand the meaning behind your motion.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

There are two roadmaps.

The first one went from 2008 to 2013, it covered a five-year period. The current roadmap is still being used, but I am sure that we can obtain some relevant information about it. The purpose is to be proactive and get ready for the next one.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Fine.

I was not here in the past when the 2008-2013 roadmap was in place. There are surely members around the table who were here.

Mr. Choquette, you sat on this committee over the past four years, didn't you?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Yes.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Did the Standing Committee on Official Languages do a study on the 2008-2013 roadmap?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I have to admit that I don't know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Our researcher wants to say something on this topic.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Did the committee submit a report over the past three years on the 2008-2013 roadmap?

[Chloé Forget, Committee Researcher]

In 2012, there was a study on the 2008-2013 roadmap.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

We don't want to redo something that has already been done. Unless I'm mistaken, the motion asks the committee to analyze the 2008-2013 roadmap, but such an analysis was already done in 2012.

[Chloé Forget]

It would always be possible to do a follow-up on the study and make recommendations.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

If I may, Mr. Chair, I would like to put the question to Ms. Lanthier and Ms. Bossé of the FCFA.

Were you ever questioned about the 2008-2013 roadmap?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Ms. Lanthier or Ms. Bossé, would you like to answer the question?

[Suzanne Bossé]

An evaluation was done by Canadian Heritage and by all the departments involved in the 2008-2013 roadmap. In fact, we did appear once before the committee regarding that.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I am not against the committee doing analyses and studies, but I don't want it to redo something that was already done.

I propose that we work together on an analysis of the last report on the 2008-2013 roadmap and that we begin analyzing the current roadmap to prepare for the tabling of the 2018-2023 roadmap.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

First, perhaps we could send you the document on the study that was done in November 2012.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Perfect.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Chair, I must say that this really interests me, since the last study on the roadmap was done in 2012. We are in 2016. Some people spoke about this in the House today.

I would like to know where the planning is at on this and what has been done and what remains to be done. I find my colleague's suggestion very interesting, because it would allow us to know what has been done and what has not been done. We can certainly begin with 2012. What is being proposed is interesting, in light of what we heard from the witnesses who appeared before the committee and given, let's put it this way, that the translation valve has been turned off considerably over the past few years. This interests me. I am in favour of the motion. We can start with 2012, but let's study the roadmap.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you, Ms. Lapointe.

Mr. Choquette, you have the floor.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I am also in favour of the motion.

It doesn't matter to me if we spend less time on the 2008-2013 roadmap, as Mr. Généreux said, since it has already been analyzed. We could do that part more quickly. However, I would like us to set a time limit on that study. We don't need to spend a year on that. That is what Mr. Généreux was trying to say, I think. We have to give ourselves a limit. Perhaps Mr. Vandal could give us some idea of the time limit he would like to put on the motion.

I would like to make an aside, quickly.

I know we had planned to have Ms. Achimov return to the committee to talk to us about the Translation Bureau. At the last meeting, we said this was not necessary. However, I was wondering if we could receive Minister Judy Foote or some officials from the Department of Public Services and Procurement, since that is the department responsible for the Translation Bureau. It would be interesting to hear from one or all of these officials. I know it might be difficult to have the minister come here, but perhaps we could hear from some executives to find out what is being planned for the Translation Bureau. That is what I am proposing, but I will speak about it again later. I just wanted to float the idea.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I would like us to get back to the motion.

We have to decide how many meetings we want to hold on the topic of the motion.

Mr. Vandal, do you have some idea?