Official Languages Committee on Oct. 18th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are starting the public portion of the meeting.

We will begin with a discussion on Mr. Beaulieu's motion.

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The motion is as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), and taking into account the Radio-Canada reports last Tuesday, which revealed new violations of the Official Languages Act within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), the Committee hear from the RCMP Commissioner, Mike Duheme, no later than October 18 to discuss the RCMP’s plan to comply with the Official Languages Act and respect the French language.

As we know, Radio-Canada revealed that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was hiring unilingual anglophones for bilingual positions. These employees do not speak a word of French and are not taking French courses, either. This is a flagrant violation of the Official Languages Act by the federal police. It is also far from the first time this has happened.

In 2016, the Commissioner of Official Languages announced that 16,000 positions required English compared to only 19 positions that required French. A little later, in 2019, the Commissioner of Official Languages announced that all of the 21,134 regular member positions of the RCMP were designated as “French non-essential”. In fact, some of those positions are bilingual, but no positions are designated as “French essential” anymore. The situation is really deteriorating.

Police training could previously be completed in either official language. Since 2019, it has been offered only in English or in bilingual format. As Stéphanie Chouinard said, any bilingual training puts francophones at a disadvantage.

The list of examples is long. For instance, access to information requests in French are processed less quickly than others. What's more, the Commissioner of Official Languages recently criticized the RCMP in Prince Edward Island because its warnings about dangerous weather were not translated into French until four hours later, jeopardizing people's safety.

I think it's very important that the committee hear from the RCMP commissioner.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Godin now has the floor. He will be followed by Mr. Serré.

Mr. Godin, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague about the motion that has been moved. However, I'd like to make a few changes.

First, of course, “October 18” should be replaced with “November 8”. That's the date I propose. Second, I propose adding “, and invite the Minister of Public Safety”. Indeed—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You mean to say, “no later than November 8”, right?

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

Yes, that's right. Is it realistic? Yes? Okay.

I think it's important to hear from the person who is on the ground and the government representative who has the power to provide direction.

As I often say, we would have liked the Treasury Board to be the central agency, but that unfortunately wasn't part of Bill C‑13.

Therefore, I move that we adopt an amendment to replace “October 18” with “November 8” and add “, and invite the Minister of Public Safety” after “Mike Duheme”.

This is my proposed amendment, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Does anyone have anything to say about Mr. Godin's amendment?

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with Mr. Beaulieu's motion, and I think we all agree that the motion is essential.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Serré, we're talking about Mr. Godin's amendment.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

As for the date, the clerk would have to check whether November 8 would not be too soon. Obviously, it probably won't be possible before October 18.

That said, Mr. Godin's proposal shows a pattern. A minister is invited in every motion presented. It may be the will of the committee to invite ministers to each of its meetings—that is requested in each motion—but I don't think it's realistic. The motion is clear and seeks to invite Mike Duheme, from the RCMP, to testify before the committee. That's important, and I think the committee needs to do it.

I agree with changing the date to November 8. On the other hand, I don't think we always have to invite ministers to testify before the committee.

We could meet with Mr. Duheme and then see if—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

My colleague is talking about the committee's supposed habits, but I'd like us to continue discussing the amendment.

I proposed an amendment to change the date and invite the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, I think we can continue listening to Mr. Serré. You made a comment about the Treasury Board in the context of your amendment. I think we can balance things out and, in some cases, add a little cream. On the other hand, if we want the cream to contain absolutely no fat, that has to apply to everyone.

Mr. Serré, you may continue.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I don't know about the fat issue, but I think there's enough fat around.

If I understand correctly, Mr. Godin is proposing two amendments. He wants the date changed and he wants the minister to be invited. I'm trying to determine whether it's necessary to do that before we hear from the RCMP.

I agree that the motion should be amended. I'm just wondering whether it's necessary to add the invitation for the minister to the motion. This could happen with every motion. But we really want to hear what the RCMP commissioner has to say here. Then we could see what we want to do.

With the plan we've already approved, we have a date, which is November 8. I just want to make sure that's not a problem. Adding a minister every time takes a little more time. We really want to get to the heart of the matter. This is very important. We want to hear from the commissioner. What's going on is not acceptable, and we want to hear from him as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Serré.

In anticipation of future comments, I'd like to clarify that Mr. Godin's amendment to Mr. Beaulieu's motion is in two parts, but is really one amendment. We would change the date of the RCMP commissioner's appearance, which would take place by November 8, and we would add an invitation for the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. That's it, I think.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

The amendment is certainly necessary, given that we have greatly delayed the adoption of the motion. The October 18 date has lapsed. I find the idea of hearing from the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs relevant, given what links the RCMP to that department.

Moreover, we're talking here about a long-standing situation. I don't know for how many years the Commissioner of Official Languages has been making one report after another. If the minister is going to be held accountable on this, maybe he'll lobby for changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Ms. Ashton—

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

I'd like to add very quickly that, if some people absolutely disagree with inviting the minister, they'll have to split the amendment in two.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I want to hear everyone's comments on the amendment. I'm being told we can split it if we want. But I want to hear from the committee members first. Perhaps there will be a consensus.

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

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

I want to say, first, that I support the amendment. I think it makes sense.

Second, as we know, the minister responsible for public safety, who runs the RCMP in one way or another, is francophone and from the Atlantic region. Yet the commissioner's report speaks very disturbingly of the weather warnings that were issued during the recent storms. I imagine this would be an issue for the minister. We'd like to hear what this new minister has to say and see how progress can be made on this very important and troubling issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

Mr. Iacono, go ahead.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I'm a little confused. We're trying to move so quickly that we don't understand the purpose of the motion.

I think it is more important to invite the RCMP commissioner and public officials to shed light on the situation and explain things to us in detail than to invite the Minister of Public Safety and bombard him with questions.

It's not the minister who's going to have all the answers, but rather the department's representatives. Once we've heard their opinion and that of the commissioner, we'll be in a better position to ask the minister questions. At the moment, inviting the minister would be a little premature. We have neither enough details nor enough information about why things went wrong.

I would rather hear from public officials, people who will be able to answer our questions, rather than simply invite the minister to ask him questions, when he won't know all the details. I'm not saying he's not aware of the situation, but public officials will be better equipped to point us in the right direction. Their information and answers will enable us to meet with the minister later.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you very much.

Normally, we have discussions in the hallways. I don't want to repeat them here, but we don't even know if the minister will be available in two weeks. I am very familiar with the opposition's tricks: If he is not available, they will say that the minister did not comply with the motion. The motion proposes a date, but I have no idea of the minister's availability. I don't have his schedule in front of me.

Does the committee want to undertake a study on the RCMP? If so, it could invite Vic Toews and Steven Blaney. Indeed, the problem of bilingualism in the RCMP is not new, as Mr. Beaulieu rightly said. It didn't start 24 hours ago, or 48 hours ago, or with the story we just read in the paper recently. It goes back a number of years. If the committee wants to undertake a more in-depth study on the topic, it can invite everyone.

Depending on the committee's flexibility, I suggest giving the RCMP commissioner a deadline, which everyone agreed on, and giving the Minister of Public Safety a little more flexibility. No one has talked to us about this before. Normally, there are discussions beforehand behind the scenes. If that had been the case, we would have known that the committee wanted to invite the minister and we would have negotiated a date; maybe not November 8, but maybe the week after or before December 1, for example. At the moment, the date in question is two weeks away. I'm not a minister, but my schedule for the next three weeks is already full.