Today is March 26, 2013. Welcome to the 73rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, February 27, 2013, we are here to study Bill C-419, An Act respecting language skills.
Joining us is the member of Parliament for , Ms. Latendresse, who introduced this bill.
Ms. Latendresse, you have the floor.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am very happy to be here today. Of course, it is a bit unusual to be at this end of the table, but I am very pleased to be able to tell you about my bill.
First of all, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Official Languages for the opportunity to clarify my reasons behind Bill C-419 and the impact of the bill on our Parliament.
The unanimous support for this bill at second reading shows that we know how to work together for all Canadians. Bill C-419 is very much in line with the decisions made over the years by various governments to make the Parliament of Canada a bilingual institution.
Although Canada's linguistic duality has caused in the past and still continues to occasionally cause small hitches, it remains one of the main assets of the unshakeable political agreement between all Canadians.
Bill C-419 is one more step in the right direction toward harmony between the two linguistic groups, which we have been trying to establish for over 40 years.
[English]
It is with great pride that I bring this one stone to contribute to the consolidation of this great House that we are building together. The Parliament of Canada functions in both official languages. This means that Parliament, as an institution representing the people of Canada, adapts to Canadians and to the people they elect to represent them in the House, the MPs.
[Translation]
Officers of Parliament are an integral part of the great parliamentary machinery and must meet the criteria set out for Parliament. In a bilingual Parliament, bilingualism is an essential skill for those who are part of the inner workings. That is the basic premise of the whole spirit of Bill C-419.
[English]
In early November of 2011, the Conservative government nominated New Brunswick native Michael Ferguson to the position of Auditor General of Canada. To everyone's surprise, and furthermore in breach of tradition, it surfaced immediately that Mr. Ferguson was not bilingual, that is to say, he had neither passive nor active skill in one of Canada's two official languages.
[Translation]
I would like to remind the committee that, when the government posted the competition notice, it was clearly indicated that proficiency in both of Canada's official languages was a prerequisite. Bill C-419 would solve the problem that was created by making bilingualism an essential skill for officers of Parliament under the law.
[English]
The government has apologized for this unfortunate faux pas, and it is my opinion that the apology was heartfelt. In the long process of making Parliament work for Canadians, tiny glitches are to be expected. They serve a precise purpose, teaching us to learn from our mistakes so that we can forge forward on ground that will be both firmer and better marked.
In recent months I have travelled across Canada to meet with the various actors involved with promoting the rights of Canadians living in linguistic minority environments. I have met with wonderful people in Moncton, St. Boniface, and other places. Every last one of them understood the bilingualism of Parliament to be a given. Their support for Bill was overwhelmingly enthusiastic.
When I started working on this bill, I had to consider several angles to this situation. As everyone here can easily testify, when language becomes a political issue, emotions quicken. Language lies so close to identity in the human heart that extra efforts are necessary to master oneself when a slight is perceived, be it genuine or imaginary. Sensibilities are so easily hurt that every last word must be chosen carefully.
[Translation]
Among the factors that contributed to the direction of my work on this bill, one factor kept coming back to me and I felt it was more significant than all the others. I remembered the outstanding work of former Auditor General Sheila Fraser.
She was fully bilingual and was able to understand everything without the help of an interpreter. When she was digging deeper into the scandal whose epicentre was in Quebec, if she had needed things to be translated all the time, I think that would have had a negative impact on her work.
Imagine for a second what it would be like if the Auditor General of Canada did not understand a word of English. How much would his work slow down if he relied on interpretation at every stage? Such a thing is inconceivable because it is so absurd.
The institution of the Parliament of Canada belongs to Canadians and, as a mirror of our democratic will, it must reflect our country and its linguistic duality. Everyone agrees on that. We now have an opportunity to take our decision one step further. That was my intention with Bill C-419.
[English]
To conclude, I believe that honourable committee members have already understood the positive impact of this bill for the furthering of our goals as a country.
I look forward to hearing any questions this committee may wish to ask.
Thank you.
:
In fact, since you used the words “Whereas the Constitution provides“, I assume that the wording was drawn wholly, or almost wholly, from the Constitution.
My second question has to do with clause 2 and the part that says “without the aid of an interpreter”.
Suppose that an officer of Parliament has an accident and takes a few months off, but he has a hearing problem when he comes back. That can actually happen after an accident. From time to time, he might need an interpreter or a special device. In fact, even with the assistance of an interpreter, he might have trouble understanding certain sounds, which could prevent him from understanding certain words correctly in both his first and second language.
What should we do in a case like that? Should we fire him, although he has all the skills required to keep his position and he still has five years before his mandate expires?
:
I would now like to go back to clause 4.
Let's suppose that the same individual is off for three or four months to recover after his accident and that someone else has been appointed in the interim. The position had to be filled given the importance of the duties involved. In many cases, those appointed in the interim work in the same office. They don't necessarily have the same language skills, but they are fully capable of doing the job for three or four months. If the person does not come back or dies, we would have to go through the whole process of appointing a new officer of Parliament.
For an interim appointment, can we have someone who is not as proficient in French, meaning that they meet the requirements for level 2 or 3, but not for level 1?
:
I listened very attentively to all the questions that have been asked.
Ms. Latendresse, my first comment will be in Russian and has to do with the work you did: spasibo.
I would like to continue in the wake of my colleague's questions about the quality of the French in the bill. The English version has a sort of rigour. In fact, the English is consistent from one paragraph to the next. But, that is not the case in the French version. It isn't very serious, but perhaps the people who drafted the bill could look into it. I do not want to make a big deal out of it, but since our role is to defend Canada's official languages, first and foremost, I think the French language should be treated equally.
:
I am pleased to see that you have taken the initiative for this bill.
In my naivety, when I read the preamble, I notice that it is very important because it reaffirms things that should be obvious in 2013, both for parliamentarians and for the government machine. If this preamble is there, it is because this did not seem obvious when the Auditor General was chosen.
I would like you to talk about your preamble, particularly the mention of the following:
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.
This passage in the preamble is one that seems important to me, and it is as important to reiterate it today. I am still surprised that the Liberals, who were in power for 20 years, did not manage to add this to a bill, but that is a matter for another debate.
I would like you to tell me about your preamble.
:
The purpose of the preamble is to set out why it is important for officers of Parliament to be bilingual. Otherwise, without the preamble, there is just a list of individuals who must be bilingual. We want to underline a fundamental fact, namely that, since Parliament is a bilingual institution, it is essential that the people who form it, in this case the people in the highest positions, be bilingual. That is how it works. We want the message to be clear.
As I mentioned earlier, the definition of an officer of Parliament is not very clear. That is why I think it is truly important that we explain that these are people appointed by the House of Commons or by the Senate. Therefore, a resolution of the House of Commons is necessary. In other words, if there is just a list, it may be difficult to understand why it is exactly these 10 positions that are on it. It is much easier to understand if it is set out in the preamble.
Lastly, I think it is always important to reiterate that English and French have equal status, rights and privileges with respect to their use in Parliament. I think that a number of aspects here are really essential.
:
My two questions relate to clauses 3 and 4.
The first is, in your opening remarks and in response to questions from my colleagues, you described the positions as 10 very important ones, and that you were in Saint Boniface or where have you, and people understand those positions. In your opening remarks you also mentioned the fact that language can sometimes be political.
Clause 3 is, as Mr. Trottier referred to, sort of open-ended. It's maybe an order. It is not done in Parliament, so wouldn't you agree that the principles I think you're fighting for would still be fulfilled if that clause were removed?
:
I think what's important is to understand that there is no real problem with adding positions to the list.
[English]
There is no problem with adding some of those positions in the event, as I was talking about, there's a new officer of Parliament, for example. That's the reason we put in that provision. We were thinking it could be a good thing to add some positions if something new were to happen.
As we said, if it's Parliament that adds some of those positions, it's not really a problem. It's just that, in our opinion, it's preferable that the Governor in Council be able to add one. If something were to happen, we would want to do it as quickly as possible.
Congratulations, Ms. Latendresse, for your bill. It's quite interesting.
I will ask my questions in the other official language.
[English]
In regard to clause 2, being able to understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and to express himself or herself clearly in both official languages, there are many times when any one of these agents will be out meeting organizations or people in public where there will be no translation service and so forth.
Am I to assume, or do I interpret well, when you mention in your bill “without the aid of an interpreter”, that their capacity to understand and communicate in both official languages in situations like that is one of the areas you are looking at?
[English]
I think we live in a pretty special country with the two official languages. Over the years since official bilingualism has been in play, I know that, for example, the anglophone community in Quebec, the vast majority of young people under the age of 35 at this point, are fluently bilingual, and float between both cultures quite easily. I'm sure the same type of thing can be said for the francophone community outside of Quebec, being able to speak in their second language as eloquently as their mother tongue.
I think there is clearly a fine pool of potential candidates out there, but what's important about this bill is that it sends a message to young people who are in school and have aspirations of being something like one of these officers.
[Translation]
If you want to be Auditor General, it is better to complete your studies in both languages.
[English]
Would that be a fair assessment of the message?
:
We are continuing the meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
Welcome to our witnesses. We have two groups before us. First, we will hear from Ms. Kenny and Ms. Côté, from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, and then…
[English]
Mr. Thompson and Mr. Shea, from the Quebec Community Groups Network.
We'll begin with an opening statement from
[Translation]
…Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.
:
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members. Ms. Bossé, who was to accompany me, is not here today. I have with me Diane Côté, our director of government and community relations.
I would like to begin by thanking you for inviting us to testify before you about Bill . It will come as no surprise to anyone here that the federation supports the bill and that we are truly very pleased that all parliamentarians have shown their support of this bill at second reading.
Before I discuss the bill itself, I would like to say that we were surprised that the committee invited us to comment on the bill when we are not aware of the wording of the amendments that will be proposed. Our appearance here today may be our only opportunity to comment on Bill , and obviously we would have preferred to have appeared once the amendments had been tabled. It would have at least been more useful for the committee.
Our comments today will focus in part on what we were able to read in the transcript of the debates held in the House on February 26 with respect to the government's planned amendments.
One of the concerns expressed in these debates has to do with the definition of the required language skills. In that respect, allow me to give you the citizen's point of view. French-speaking Canadians expect to be able to hear the Auditor General speak in French to explain the government's major financial management issues. They expect to be able to speak with the Privacy Commissioner in their own language. In short, the capacity to speak to the public and understand them without using an interpreter is essential. It requires advanced oral and comprehension skills.
I will now comment on the issue of whether the power to add to the list of positions set out in this legislation should come under the Governor in Council or Parliament. This issue is of interest to us because, as you no doubt know, the FCFA has proposed that we eventually add to this list the president of the CRTC and the president of CBC/Radio-Canada, among others. However, if this power to add positions is given to Parliament, it means that each addition will have to be made by amendment to the bill, with the related delays. To be efficient, we therefore feel that this power to add positions should be the responsibility of the Governor in Council.
Lastly, we would like to comment on the issue of people appointed on an acting basis. From our perspective, the language skills set out in Bill are linked to the positions and remain a constant. Furthermore, you know as well as we do that an acting appointment can last several months before a permanent appointment is made. Therefore, we think that any incumbent of a position set out in Bill C-419, whether that person is appointed on an acting or a permanent basis, must have the language skills required by the position.
Those are our thoughts on the intended amendments that we are aware of. We truly hope that the amendments that are made by this committee will respect the basic principle of the public's right to communicate with officers of Parliament in the language of their choice.
I want to reiterate that we are delighted to see that parliamentarians are united in their support of Bill . Clearly, when you voted in the House, the interests of Canadians were at the heart of your concerns. We hope that it will be the same for this committee. There are many serious issues facing the francophonie and official languages that deserve this committee's attention.
The FCFA and the organizations in its network hope to work with the committee to advance French and linguistic duality in Canada, but we think it is important that this cooperation be productive and beneficial for everyone. Among other things, that means being able to appear at an appropriate time, at a stage that will enable us to best contribute to the committee's work.
Thank you.
:
Good afternoon, Monsieur Chong, Monsieur Dion, Monsieur Godin, and other members of the committee.
With me today is Mr. James Shea, a member of our board of directors who very graciously agreed to come at short notice to help answer questions.
It's a pleasure to be back with you. The last time we were here we were providing testimony for your study on linguistic duality during the 150th anniversary celebrations of Canadian Confederation in 2017. Here we are again talking about a bill that fulfills a duty to a right first pronounced in the Constitution Act, 1867. Section 133 permits English or French to be used by any person in the Debates of the Houses of Parliament of Canada, and for both official languages to be used in their respective records and Journals.
Over a century later, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would constitutionally reinforce and expand English and French as Canada's official languages, proclaiming their equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use not only in all institutions of Parliament but also of the Government of Canada.
Parliamentary language rights were established to ensure that the people's representatives could fulfill their duties in French and English so that government could be held to account. It is you, Canada's parliamentarians, who are the focus of these rights, and it is the duty of the institutions of Parliament to ensure that you may fully enjoy them.
Canadians participate directly in their Parliament. For example, I am appearing today at your invitation, and I'm exercising the right to address you in the official language of my choice. I used parliamentary records and Journals translated into English to prepare. Later, I will access those same records as a citizen to hold you to account.
But I am not an appointed agent of Parliament. Although subject to its decisions, I am not a servant of this institution. If I were, it would be unacceptable for you to need translation to understand my message to you. The requirement to provide services of equal quality in both official languages is how the institutions of Parliament and the Government of Canada ensure the equality of status and the equal rights and privileges of Canada's two official languages.
The QCGN firmly believes in Bill and the aim of ensuring that the named agents of Parliament must understand English and French without the aid of an interpreter and be able to express themselves clearly in both official languages. We do not believe that further caveat is required. The appointees enunciated in the bill not only support parliamentarians in their governance of Canada, but are important Canadian public figures and leaders in their own right. They deal with complex issues that require mastery of the two official languages. If this were not the case, then parliamentarians with no or with low second official language skills would not enjoy equality of status, rights, or privileges.
Imagine a Commissioner of Official Languages who could not explain Canada's official languages in English. Imagine a president of the Public Service Commission who couldn't answer questions from a reporter from Le Devoir because he or she didn't speak French; a Privacy Commissioner who could not read the concerns expressed in an English editorial; Acadian voters being forced to communicate in English so that the Chief Electoral Officer could understand their concerns.
If a matter is of sufficient importance that Parliament feels compelled to pass legislation and appoint officers of the type listed in Bill , then those officers must be able to communicate to Canadians as clearly in English as in French on their areas of responsibility. If they cannot, either English or French Canadians and their representatives will be left out of important public discussion. This would deny not only the law, but democracy itself.
In short, bilingualism for these positions is not something that would be nice to have; it is a job requirement. Translation, no matter how well it is done, is technical and formal. It can never completely capture nuance, emotion, and meaning. Language skills also affect whom parliamentarians have access to on an informal basis, what conversations they might be a part of, and what ideas they may discover. Isn't this a place where ideas are supposed to be shared?
The Prime Minister's message to preface the road map for Canada's linguistic duality admirably noted that linguistic duality is a cornerstone of our national identity. You don't weaken a cornerstone.
Thank you.
I would like to thank Marie-France Kenny and Diane Côté of the FCFA, and Stephen D. Thompson and James Shea of the QCGN.
[English]
It's great to have you here.
We just spoke to the member about why she brought in the bill. Mr. Thompson, I have to make that comment because of the comments you made that they are agents of the Parliament working for Canadians and parliamentarians. This is clear. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you said it doesn't matter which language Canadians speak, English or French, that they have the right to hear these agents of the Parliament in the language of their choice.
Mr. Ferguson, for example, was appointed as the Auditor General. I want to make sure that this has nothing to do with the person himself; we're talking about the position. It's exactly what you have said. When he did his report, on the French channel everything was in English and the francophones got nothing. That's why what you have said is so important. When he had his press conference and they asked him a question in French, he answered in English. It was not translated and nobody in the country got it. That job is important and all Canadians should be able to hear what is said. That's why I appreciate the statement you made.
With that, we see in the bill, “The Governor in Council may, by order, add offices to the list established in section 2”. We're talking about the officers of the Parliament. That's what we're talking about, and it's stated in the preamble:
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;
We're talking about those appointments which are done by the Parliament and the Senate. We're not saying that the Governor in Council just does it on his or her own. It says when they're appointed that those persons will be bilingual.
Do you have any problem with doing that through the Governor in Council?
Clause 4 reads as follows:
In the event of the absence or incapacity of the incumbent of any of the offices listed in section 2 or vacancy in any of these offices, the person appointed in the interim must meet the requirements set out in section 2.
What is your position on that?
As you said, you have not been asked to appear after the amendments, but I think that's normal. When we are studying a bill, we invite people and, afterwards when we are in camera, we do a clause-by-clause study, and amendments are put forward. Moreover, based on what the government says in the House, we can expect amendments.
We heard from witnesses earlier. There are 30 million people in Canada and we should be able to find someone. Even among people who work for the Commissioner or the Auditor General, there must be some bilingual individuals. I would like to know what you think about people in acting positions. Should they be bilingual? Do you accept that for two, three or six months, Canadians should be deprived of a bilingual individual if the person appointed on an interim basis is not?
I would like to talk about the list of positions. I want to point out something interesting. There are 10 positions, but only eight of them are officers of Parliament. I don't know if you are aware of that, but the first eight are officers of Parliament, but the other two, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the President of the Public Service are not officers are Parliament. That might be why the words "officers of Parliament" do not appear in this bill. I think it is important to be clear because this is legislation we are working on.
The bill has not yet been adopted and we are already talking about names. My question is for both groups. The list isn't limited to officers of Parliament. In this case, are we running a risk if we are adding more and more positions? Obviously, there are already two positions that are not officers of Parliament. I would like your comments on this because, Ms. Kenny, during your presentation, you spoke about the president of the CRTC and the president and CEO of CBC/Radio-Canada. Perhaps there are other positions we are thinking of that are not officers of Parliament.
:
I would like to thank both groups of witnesses.
[English]
Thank you so much for being here with us.
[Translation]
My question is somewhat on the same topic.
In the second paragraph, after the word « Whereas », they refer to
[English]
“the institutions of Parliament”.
[Translation]
In the fourth paragraph, after the word « Whereas », they talk about
[English]
“persons appointed with the approval by resolution of the Senate, the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament...“.
[Translation]
So there is something vague there. As was just pointed out, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the president of the Public Service Commission are not really institutions of Parliament. The public service is not either. It is part of the executive branch.
Ms. Kenny, you suggest that the chair of the CRTC and the president of the CBC be added to the list, and they are clearly not agents of Parliament. They would be very surprised to be told that they were, and everyone else would be as well.
Does this vagueness bother you? Are you suggesting that these matters be clarified, or, on the contrary, do you think that this is a creative vagueness? I am putting my question to both groups.
:
I'm a translator, but I couldn't figure out that word.
For me, it just made common sense that the person would be bilingual. So what is the risk, then, in terms of trying to find the next person, and then creating an interim...? We have that risk. It happened. I'm still without an auditor general who can speak to me in my language during a French interview on Radio-Canada. I'm still without that a year and a half later.
For me, it just makes common sense, I agree; but we ran into this. It happened.
If it's not in a law, what's my guarantee that it won't happen again for another key position, and another one? Governments change and things happen. As good as all our intentions are here, what's to say that it won't happen again 10 years down the road?
:
We're not asking for perfection. I'm fluent in four languages, including English and French, and I think my English is pretty good, although I couldn't say “auditor” two minutes ago.
We're not asking for perfection. I want to be able to understand, I want to be able to be understood. That's all we're asking.
There is a difference between starting from scratch and trying to build. I was in charge of language training for a federal crown corporation. It doesn't take a year. When you have a key position within government, your learning curve is very high and very steep without the language, so imagine adding a language.
You can't learn a language in one year. It's hard to do even full time so imagine when it's only a fraction of your time. I think these are unrealistic expectations. I think we put very high demands on Mr. Ferguson by putting him in that position, and I don't think it was fair to him or to the Canadian population.
:
I'll speak from experience as a person responsible for official languages and language training in a crown corporation that is not subjected to the CBC levels. We had our own rating level.
What's important here is whether you can perform your job in both official languages. If I were hiring an IT person, my interview with this person would be strictly IT based. I would pretend I was a caller calling to get information from the help desk. I needed help with something. If the person couldn't answer in both official languages, then they were not at the proficiency level that we wanted. We want advanced level, not expert, which is equivalent, I believe, to the C level within the public service.
We're not asking for somebody....You know, I make mistakes when I speak English. I still do interviews in English, and people still understand me. It's the ability to be understood and to understand. I still say “air” instead of “hair”, but people understand when I speak, and that's what we're asking. That, I believe, requires the C proficiency level.
Should it be built in? If you think it's necessary, but at the very minimum we should say that they should be advanced in their own field of expertise. If we're looking for an auditor general, they should be able to explain processes and whatever in both official languages.
:
Thank you to the witnesses for being here.
There is some interesting discussion going on, but I'm going to touch first on the issue of the temporary position, when the agent leaves, resigns and so forth, and there is an interim period. I would like to share my feeling with you and invite comments. I feel that, whether it's an interim position or not—and I think you said it best, Ms. Kenny—it's the position itself that holds the proficiency and not the individual. If that individual, interim or not, cannot hold that proficiency then, for that period of time, Canadians and the people who work for that agency are getting less than they should be getting until they find someone to fill that position.
Would that be an accurate—
:
Because I have only five minutes, I'll jump over to what we were talking about, the proficiency levels. Any kind of grading system is a subjective thing, from elementary school right through to job applications.
My concern about adding a very specific measure in the law is that it will not account for any progress that may be made in the future in terms of language proficiency, skills, and expectations. As the country becomes more and more bilingual, one would hope and expect there would be a higher level of expectation of language proficiency—oral, written, comprehension, interpretation, and there might be something else added.
My fear in adding a limit is that the limit very quickly becomes a lower limit for what is available out there.
I want to welcome all of the witnesses.
Ms. Kenny, since you are a translator, I think that you are just the right person to answer my question. I think it is important that the people appointed to these positions be able to read, understand and speak both official languages properly. We all think that. However, in clause 2 of the bill, the following words are used: « without the aid of an interpreter ». As you said, it takes years to learn a language, and more years again to master a second language. If you do not understand a word or you understand more or less, you can ask for the help of an interpreter to make sure you understand a sentence correctly and can make the right decision afterwards.
If we leave that text intact, are we going to have to ask the agent of Parliament to resign if he or she needs an interpreter from time to time in order to understand some expression properly?
I was of course bilingual, since I was a translator. If someone wants to have a career in a government department or agency or aspires to a position in the upper echelons of the public service, like that of the Auditor General, they should be bilingual, as our young people know as of high school. If you have a certain career plan, you have to see certain things coming and act accordingly.
It's the same thing when I hear about the difficulty of recruiting bilingual people. When I was in Saskatchewan, we recruited bilingual auditors and bilingual audit directors. These people exist; you simply have to take the trouble to look for them.
Of course, if I am looking for a bilingual chartered accountant in Bellegarde, I may not find any; but if I broaden my search to all of Saskatchewan, I will find some. The point is that you have to do a serious search. You can turn to the services of headhunters, for instance. Sometimes that option seems very expensive, but it is less expensive by far than having to train someone for two years.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes, that's fine.
The Chair: Is there further debate on this motion?
Seeing none, I'll call the question.
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Without further ado, this meeting is adjourned.