Official Languages Committee on Feb. 14th, 2023

[Julie Boyer]

I would think that, yes, it would be a board that would decide, but this would become an obligation that would limit their choices in terms of appointing a bilingual candidate. They would be legislated to do that, to be clear.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Can I follow up, Mr. Chair?

Therefore, you're saying that, from this point on, with the adoption of this amendment, shareholders would no longer be able to appoint their own CEOs. Appointments would be at the discretion of the government.

Is that what we're getting in terms of the language of the amendment?

[Julie Boyer]

My team is anxiously saying, no, no, no. We wouldn't appoint the candidate, but if this amendment is retained and Bill C-13 passes, those private entities that have official language obligations from this legislation—including, for example, Air Canada—would have to name a bilingual CEO. At the time of hire, this person would have to be fluently bilingual.

That's what this amendment says.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Over to you, Ms. Ashton.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The NDP unreservedly supports this amendment. We believe that the heads of large corporations ought to be subject to the Official Languages Act. I'd like to give you a few of my thoughts in this regard.

Apart from the fact that it's scandalous for the CEOs of Air Canada and Canadian national not to understand or speak French, I believe that it's really a question of accountability to Canadians and Quebeckers.

There is a reason why such corporations are subject to the act, and that's because they are the outcome of the dogmatic privatization of the neoliberal years. Canadians and Quebeckers are paying the price not only in terms of cuts and job losses and a decline in level of service, but they are also losing their language rights.

Ask any francophone public servant in the national capital region whether it's easy to work in French and whether their boss speaks French: all important meetings will of course be held in English, and if a francophone wants to argue a specific point of view, it will have to be in English.

The CEOs of these corporations are the CEOs of private corporations because the government privatized them. One of their few remaining obligations is compliance with the Official Languages Act. By appointing CEOs who could express themselves in only one official language, the corporations have repeatedly shown that they are not interested in respecting their social contract with us, including those working in Quebec, and whose CEOs can't even speak the official language of Quebecker.

I therefore support the Bloc Québecois amendment. It was a mistake to privatize these corporations, and at the very least, their CEOs should also be able to express themselves in French.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I'd like to remind people that this amendment was requested by the Government of Quebec, as was amendment BQ-14. I think it's an important one. If we want to make sure that there are indeed CEOs capable of speaking French in Quebec, and even perhaps outside Quebec, then this proposal needs to be supported.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to start by saying that I believe the amendment should specify that the person should have the capacity to speak and understand "both official languages", as in the other amendment. Otherwise, it will be asymmetrical, and the current amendment would allow a unilingual francophone who does not speak a word of English.

This may appear to be of minor importance, but I nevertheless hope that someone will propose a subamendment to rectify it.

I have two questions.

First, it says, “any corporation subject to the Act”. In the old version of this bill, every corporation under federal jurisdiction that was privately held was subject to this act. Is there any claim in the new version, where there are two parallel acts, that we're now trying to make every CEO of every privately regulated federal business need to speak both languages, including small businesses that have a family-run CEO? I think that in itself would be an absurdity.

Second, let's say I am the CEO right now of a business that is subject to this act and I do not speak one of the two official languages—or, in this case, I don't speak French, if this is not modified. Is the corporation then not already in breach by virtue of the fact that they have a CEO currently in place who doesn't speak the other official language? Would that person need to be terminated as a result, because they're not in compliance with the act? Who will cover the severance from terminating that person?

I believe all of these things arrive by having the word “CEO” in there and making it so. I'm interested in hearing those answers.

[Julie Boyer]

Chair, I will do my best to answer this two-part question.

On the first part, I think the amendment applies only to corporations.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

“Corporations” are most of the privately registered federal businesses.

[Chantal Terrien, Manager, Modernization of the Official Languages Act, Department of Canadian Heritage]

If I may, the way the amendment text is formulated, it says, “the chief executive officer of any corporation subject to the Act”, with the act being the Official Languages Act.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Remember in the old version.... In that act, we regulated all federally regulated private businesses. I want to understand clearly that there are no leftover provisions in this act that somehow regulate everybody.

[Chantal Terrien]

Yes. What Bill C-13 sets out to do is modify the Official Languages Act. It creates a new different act for federally regulated private businesses.

[Julie Boyer]

Therefore, those companies would not be subject.... We're really talking about the Air Canadas and other federal institutions that have Official Languages Act obligations.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Quell, would you like to add anything?

[Carsten Quell, Executive Director, Official Languages Centre of Excellence, People and Culture, Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer, Treasury Board Secretariat]

Maybe I can add that some of the entities that will be touched by this amendment are port authorities. This could be a port authority in western Canada. It would also be the airport authorities, which have an obligation to serve the public in both official languages.

However, so far, those airport authorities and port authorities do not have to have CEOs who are bilingual upon appointment. That's just a clarification.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thanks, Mr. Quell.

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

These are very appropriate comments. Over the past few years we've all become aware of instances of French being ignored by some corporations, including Air Canada. Nevertheless, I find that this amendment is too general and that it will prevent unilingual people from being appointed to these sorts of senior administrative positions.

It's important to develop a bilingual culture in companies, corporations, and the public service, and I think something is said about that elsewhere in the bill. It's important to require these people to learn the other language. It's not always easy, but I think that's the philosophy that should underpin all of this. There is no bilingual culture at the moment. That's why it ought to be included in the bill.

However, this amendment appears to be too general and it skirts the issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Garneau, you have the floor.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

I'd like clarification on Mr. Quell's comment.

Would this mean, for example, that the CEOs of port authorities in Port Alberni, Nanaimo and Halifax, and airport authorities in Calgary and Vancouver, among others, would have to be bilingual?

[Carsten Quell]

Yes, that's right.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Since no one else appears to have any comments, we'll vote on this amendment.

(The amendment is defeated: nays 9; yeas 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are we adopting clause 14 as amended?

(Clause 14 as amended is adopted)

(Clause 15)