Tuesday, 14 December 2010 13:50

Bill to Amend-Second Reading-Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Chaput, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mahovlich, for the second reading of Bill S-220, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (communications with and services to the public).

Hon. Gerald J. Comeau (Deputy Leader of the Government): Honourable senators, I am very pleased to speak today at second reading of Bill S-220. First, allow me to congratulate Senator Maria Chaput on the tremendous research and consultation that went into introducing this bill.

This is a comprehensive and far-reaching bill that addresses a number of issues that are important to official language minority communities. I want to acknowledge the passion, sincerity, perseverance and dedication that Senator Chaput has shown and continues to express for Canada's official language minority communities.

When you come out of a meeting with Senator Chaput, you have a true sense of her conviction. I can attest to the fact that she believes strongly in the development of official language minority communities. Rarely a week goes by without her stopping by my office to talk, not only about Bill S-220, but also about a host of projects she is working on for a cause that means so much to her. I encourage her to continue in her chosen role of promoter and defender.

As the chair of the Official Languages Committee, she is known as someone who seeks consensus. She is always prepared to work with both sides in order to reach it. That is why I recommended that she keep the position of chair of the committee the last time committee chairs were shuffled.

Above all else, she is very endearing. She is a sincere woman whom you would want as a neighbour and a friend. In her speech, Senator Chaput spoke of her children and grandchildren. They can all be proud of their favourite senator. She has a good reputation among us here in Ottawa, on both sides of the chamber. We are happy that you shared her with us.

Partisanship is a fact of life in Parliament, but I sincerely believe that Senator Chaput does not bend to any political agenda. She would never profit from her position or dedicate her efforts to benefit a political agenda.

In fact, it is amusing to see her embarrassment when she is sitting next to Senator Mercer as he launches into his partisan rants, which is basically any time he opens his mouth.

Some Hon. senators: So true!

Senator Comeau: For all these reasons, I do not believe that her bill involves partisan politics. Her work on Bill S-220 has been an honest and sincere effort to help her cherished minority language communities flourish.

That is why we need to recognize that the countless hours she has put into working on and researching this bill have been given sincerely. Her work must be appreciated and should not be criticized for the wrong reasons. And so I will try to be as positive as I can when raising the points that concern the government. I will be recommending that the bill ultimately be sent to committee so that it can be studied seriously, as should happen with a serious bill.

Senator Chaput knows that I do not support private members' bills that propose major amendments to legislation or significant changes to public policy, unless the government consents.

Unlike the separation of powers in the United States, in Canada there is a clear separation of the parliamentary and executive functions in our parliamentary system. By getting involved in the government's executive role and proposing major legislative initiatives, the Senate is changing, and even weakening, the very nature of our government system, which is a system based on trust.

The primary role of individual members of Parliament in Canada is to examine the government's bills, not to govern. Our legislative responsibility is of the utmost importance, and there is no reason for parliamentarians to get involved in the executive role, which is the government's responsibility.

The involvement of individual members works in the United States because, unlike Canada, the American republic is not based on the confidence-centred Westminster system of government. Under our confidence-based system, the role of the government is to govern and the role of the opposition is either to oppose or to propose alternatives for the consideration of the government and the electorate. If Parliament does not have any confidence in the government's programs, it can take appropriate action.

This is the best way to make governments accountable when they seek re-election. When important legislation, like the bill that is now before us, is proposed and passed by the opposition in a minority government, it becomes impossible to hold the government accountable under our confidence-based system.

How can voters hold government accountable if the opposition is governing through private members' bills?

Another problem with these bills is the fact that the government must authorize any new expenditures. Our parliamentary system, which has been in place for centuries, is based on conventions that seriously limit the power of backbenchers and opposition parties when it comes to introducing bills and amendments that involve significant expenses.

Legislating is a matter of choice. Expenses associated with Bill S-220 must be paid for out of existing programs. This will result in funds being reallocated from other high priority programs to our official language minority communities.

(1640)

Which programs from the roadmap should be abolished or cut back in order to finance the priorities of Bill S-220? Should we limit assistance to schools for minority language groups, assistance to language groups in the provinces, literacy programs, cultural programs, improvements to health care services? Are the priorities set out in Bill S-220 the new priorities of our minority language communities?

Before talking about the provisions of Bill S-220, I want to confirm the government's commitment to official languages. As Senator Chaput noted in her speech last June, we recently celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the Official Languages Act. We took that opportunity to provide an update on the progress made so far regarding the promotion of French and English across Canada. The evidence is rather strong. We have accomplished a lot in the last four decades and we are eager to keep moving forward.

Forty years ago, most communities in Canada had to use the language of the majority to communicate with federal institutions. Government services in French were very limited. Today, over 90 per cent of official language minority communities have access to federal services in their language through various means, for example, 1-800 numbers, websites, one-on-one conversations, as well as telephone services and publications.

In 40 years, we have transitioned from a nearly unilingual public service to a bilingual public service in which the official languages are part of everyday life. Before the Official Languages Act was passed, less than 10 per cent of jobs were bilingual, while now over 40 per cent are. In the National Capital Region, 65 per cent are bilingual.

We need not look hard to find other examples of the major progress being made by federal institutions. We need only look at our government's latest annual report on official languages. This report shows that an increasing number of federal institutions have taken action to ensure that their employees can take training in their second language to maintain or improve their level of bilingualism.

Our government's efforts in this regard have been criticized in some newspaper articles. However, we will proceed with our work and continue to offer this training to public servants.

We also see that the number of public servants who meet the language requirements of their positions has increased significantly.

We have made considerable efforts over the years. A great deal remains to be done, but we can be proud of our accomplishments. Were we to list the measures implemented to date, we would be here all day as it is an impressive list. Over the years, the people who have shown a firm commitment to promoting linguistic duality in Canada have been supporters of positive change. A good number of them are here with us in this chamber today. I would like to thank them for their support in this matter. Their passion for their communities and for the principle of linguistic duality, not to mention their honesty in light of current challenges and issues, are both inspiring and appreciated.

I would add that, in our chamber, differences of opinions do not give rise to personal attacks, contrary to what we saw last week when a member in the other place resorted to a vicious personal attack against me rather than just criticizing my ideas.

Getting back to the contributions of engaged citizens, I am thinking of the excellent work of Bernard Lord, who oversaw the government consultations on linguistic duality and official languages held in December 2007 and January 2008. Mr. Lord was tasked with speaking to people and organizations throughout Canada to gather various ideas and opinions. Everyone shared their unequivocal passion for and their commitment to official languages. Following these consultations, Mr. Lord developed a strategy for the next phase of the Action Plan for Official Languages, the basis for the government's Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. This document recognizes the great support linguistic duality enjoys across Canada.

The roadmap charts the course for a strong future and a more united Canada. It is based on two pillars: the participation of all Canadians in linguistic duality, and support for official language minority communities.

The roadmap is an unprecedented government-wide investment of $1.1 billion over five years. It targets five priorities: health, justice, immigration, economic development, and arts and culture. The roadmap embodies our government's commitment to linguistic duality and to both official languages.

As the Prime Minister said when he was announcing the Roadmap, linguistic duality is a cornerstone of our national identity and a source of immeasurable economic, social, and political benefits for all Canadians.

The roadmap outlines the course we plan to follow over the next five years in order to build on Canada's strong foundations. It invests in several important initiatives, many of which support official language minority communities. I know that Senator Chaput, who introduced this bill, cares deeply about those communities.

They include minority language communities such as the French-Canadians of Northern Ontario. Our government has committed to providing up to $4.5 million to promote their economic well-being. These funds were disbursed through the economic development initiative, a key aspect of the roadmap. The roadmap also gave our government the means to help francophone immigrants in provinces such as Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to improve their literacy and other essential skills to allow them to contribute fully to their communities.

The roadmap also includes steps to improve services in both languages for linguistic minorities. For example, Health Canada has improved its investment in retaining, educating and training health care professionals who work in the official language of the minority. For Canadians, that means increased access to health care services in the official language of their choice and the ability to communicate with health care providers.

Countless achievements like that have been made across Canada thanks to the roadmap. I am sure that this is the type of initiative Senator Chaput could get behind and promote. I say that with confidence because the bill she has introduced perfectly captures the spirit and intention of the roadmap initiatives to improve the vitality of significant minority groups.

Nonetheless, although the spirit and intention of Senator Chaput's bill are admirable, the effect of its proposals and their application would have major repercussions likely to produce negative results.

[English]

It is interesting to note that, in her speech at second reading, Senator Chaput spent very little time discussing the eight amendments proposed in her bill. She went so far as to call them minor amendments.

Honourable senators, the amendments in this bill are far from being minor. In fact, it is a significant rewrite of the Official Languages Act. The amendments would significantly impact the private sector, as well as provincial and municipal levels of government.

Let me discuss just a couple of the amendments to give honourable senators an idea of what we are dealing with.

One amendment, subsection 22(2), would require the RCMP to provide services in both official languages on all parts of the Trans-Canada Highway that it serves. We are talking about every single part of the Trans-Canada Highway.

(1650)

Honourable senators can imagine what this would mean for a country the size of Canada. It would create an obligation to provide bilingual services in areas where there is little or no demand. Moreover, the RCMP estimates that it would cost millions of dollars to comply. These are costs that would have to be absorbed not only by the federal government but also by the provinces and the municipal levels of government, which have to pay for the contract policing.

I imagine that some jurisdictions might even consider contracting out the service to other non-federal police forces. As noted earlier, private members' bills cannot authorize new spending from the treasury. Therefore, the federal funding would have to be diverted from existing services.

The bill would also impose official language requirements on a new category of private organizations. Proposed subsections 23(1) and 23(1.1) include for the first time companies that provide rail, maritime and transportation services. These provisions mean that for the first time the Official Languages Act will apply to private organizations without ties to government. Currently, only Crown corporations and former federal institutions, such as Air Canada, are subject to the act, and these institutions were made subject to the act when, for example, Air Canada was privatized. A special law was made that they would be subject to the Official Languages Act in order to become a Crown corporation, and obviously there were monies that went along with this requirement from the federal government.

As a result, we could find ourselves imposing a heavy financial and administrative burden on companies that have no previous official language requirements. These companies would have to recruit and train bilingual staff, which, in turn, could have a significant impact on their performance and competitiveness, all in a time when the passenger transportation sector has been hard hit by the global recession.

Interestingly, the bill does not apply to bus companies, which would give them an unfair advantage over other modes of transportation. Perhaps even more troubling is that this amendment could create the precedent whereby the Official Languages Act could be applied to other industries in the federal jurisdiction. This application could include major companies such as in the banking and telecommunication sector. Such a massive change cannot be undertaken lightly. Is this what we want to do?

Senator Chaput's bill proposes changes to address the issue of significant demand. This has been a long-standing issue of concern to minority language communities for long time.

I have talked to Minister Stockwell Day, and he is also very much aware of the debate on significant demand. He indicates to me he is open to listen and learn more on Senator Chaput's proposal, and would like to hear more detail on her proposal, as well as other ideas on the subject. He is indeed prepared to listen.

The bill proposes a fundamental change in the way bilingual federal offices are designated. Her proposed amendment would change the criteria for what constitutes significant demands, which, as I noted, is the formula used to determine when services must be provided in both official languages. Her proposal would establish new criteria based on vitality of linguistic communities. As a result, there would be a significant increase in the demand for services in both official languages.

A preliminary analysis has been undertaken on this provision as written and it shows - I note as written - that the number of offices designated as bilingual would increase significantly. For Canada Post alone, the number would increase from 650 to more than 1,500. In Quebec, the impact would be considerable; 95 per cent of federal offices would be designated bilingual. The impact would be in the millions of dollars.

Proposed paragraph 22(1)(b) would make the federal languages obligation subject to provincial and territorial obligations rather than the current and real needs identified by our minority language communities. I may be missing something, and I will follow the debate at committee, but unless I am missing something, this could be an alarming amendment to the Official Languages Act, but I am prepared to listen to more detail on it. As I say, I may be missing something.

I am told it could increase disparity in federal services offered in different provinces and territories, and would require bureaucracy to monitor, assess, plan, budget and implement changes to match what the provinces are doing, based on whatever rationale the provinces are using, rather than what the federal government should be doing to respond to communities' identified needs.

In other words, we would be looking at the provinces in order to match what they are doing but we may not know the province's rationale entirely, so we will set up a whole bureaucracy to try to find out what they are doing but will have to implement it because they are doing it.

These are only a few of the amendments. There are others in this bill, some of which are complex and far-reaching. These types of amendments that we have before us today are far from minor. They are not humble, nor would they amount to a small change in the way the Official Languages Act is applied.

The bill will require complete reform of the regulations of the official languages that deal with communications and with services to the public. There are many legitimate issues that oblige us to reflect carefully. I have discussed only a few of them today.

The bottom line is that the government is committed to providing bilingual services. These needs are constantly assessed and adjusted based on the information gathered, and the government will continue to assess and adjust. The responsible management of public funds demands that federal services respond to communities' needs based on stable and measurable data.

Honourable senators, English-and French-speaking Canadians have come a long way together. It is a journey that can be traced back to the founding of Acadie and then Quebec City. Notice the order, Acadie and then Quebec City. That is the order, and some people tend to rewrite the order. I have the correct order. Those events took place over 400 years ago, events that in recent years we celebrated with much fanfare and good cheer, and I think all Canadians applauded.

There have been countless efforts to build on this foundation over the years to ensure that Canada's official languages continue to be a strong part of our national identity. The government is committed to build on this legacy, and this is being done through the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality.

Let me stress again that the road map was developed after listening to Canadians and working with minority language communities to address their identified needs.

We recognize that we have a responsibility to play a leadership role with respect to official language communities and one that the government takes seriously. We look forward to continue addressing the concerns of linguistic minority communities, but it is the responsibility of the government under our parliamentary system to use a measured approach. This is the responsible way to go about doing the nation's business.

The electors give mandate to the party with the most seats to enact legislation and implement major policy decisions, and the electors will render a decision at election time. If the opposition parties are not happy with the government's programs and initiatives, it is their duty to defeat the government and to propose an alternative platform to the electorate and obtain a mandate to implement these proposals.

Backbenchers are increasingly trying to circumvent the royal prerogative powers of government to enact legislation, which commits the treasury. However, the evasive approaches, creative though they may be, are foreign to our parliamentary system. Backbenchers have to go through the back door to accomplish what government is mandated and obligated to do openly in their budget documents.

Senator Chaput refers to the quasi-constitutional status of the Official Languages Act. She said it is not an ordinary law, and I agree with her completely. This reason is another one that massive amendments to the Official Languages Act cannot be taken lightly.

The question must be asked: Is a backbencher's bill the most appropriate means to bring significant amendment to a quasi-constitutional act of Parliament?

Senator Chaput proposes amendments to the Official Languages Act that are extremely ambitious. In fact, they are massive. I suggest that her proposal be evaluated eventually at committee stage for its impact and possible reductions of existing services to our minority communities, the impact of these services on the treasury, the impact on the private sector that would be brought under the provisions of the Official Languages Act, and the impact on provincial and municipal levels of government. Obviously, parliamentarians would need to seek the views of these parties affected by the amendments.

(1700)

The government does not support the bill, but there is no reason why the bill should not eventually be referred to committee for study. There are a number of provisions in the bill that I have not addressed, because I simply could not measure the impact and I am not quite sure I understand some of them.

To conclude, Senator Chaput has put a great deal of work into this bill. I commend her for her work. She has given us a document that can form the basis of a profound reflection on services for minority language communities. I am convinced that it is not a partisan endeavour, and I stress this. I am thoroughly convinced this is not a partisan endeavour or what we sometimes refer to as a "wedge issue." I do not believe in any way that she would bring this as a wedge issue. Her work is done for the right reasons and, because of that, it is our duty to treat it seriously.

Hon. Elizabeth (Beth) Marshall: Honourable senators, I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Hon. the Speaker: Questions and comments?

[Translation]

Hon. Maria Chaput: Would the Honourable Senator Comeau agree to answer a question? Thank you very much, Senator Comeau. I was eager to hear your ideas and suggestions about the bill, as well as those of your colleagues.

I like to remind myself that when I arrived in the Senate, one of your colleagues, the Honourable Senator Beaudoin, came to talk to me, and I will never forget what he said: as a western francophone and a member of an official language minority community, never forget, and say to yourself when you speak: equal status, equal rights. If you say that to yourself every time you speak, you will never again speak as someone who is part of a minority, but as someone who is fully involved in what is happening in Canada. There you have it.

We are talking about an amendment to Part IV of the Official Languages Act. I understand that you will want to discuss it, and if I understood correctly what you told me, some of your colleagues would also like to take part in the debate.

I have told Senator Comeau and Senator Mockler several times that my goal is to bring this whole issue before a committee of the Senate for debate and that I am very open to changes and amendments, because all I want is a bill that really meets the needs of Canada's francophone and Acadian communities.

So in that spirit, Senator Comeau, am I to understand that the debate will continue, that some of your colleagues want to take part and that eventually - as soon as possible, I hope - this bill could be referred to a Senate committee for discussion and debate?

Senator Comeau: I make you that promise. I will also encourage my colleagues to refer the bill to committee, but I cannot promise you that they will agree. I will encourage them to send this bill to committee. Your committee wants to take a very serious look at this bill.

You have contributed to the debate by raising some very important issues that people are not aware of, specifically the issue of "significant demand." That issue alone could be dealt with more thoughtfully and in greater detail. You and other people might suggest a better approach. There may be other solutions.

I will encourage all of the honourable senators on my side to send the bill to committee, and I hope that the senators from your side will do the same.

As you know, we allow free votes on private members' bills. Senators are not forced to vote with one side or the other, but I would encourage them to send this bill to committee.

I am pleased that you mentioned the comments made to you by our former colleague, Senator Beaudoin. He knew the issue and the technical aspects very well. Linguistic duality, equality and the right to equality for both communities are all equally important concepts. French and English are two official languages with equal rights. That is very important. That is the foundation for language rights progress in Canada.

Newspapers often mention the fact that Chinese will be the most widely spoken language in British Columbia. In fact, I read something similar in yesterday's Quorum. It is possible, but it is not important. The fact is that there are two official languages in Canada.

[English]

Maybe there is more Ukrainian than French spoken in Saskatchewan. That is possible. However, that is irrelevant because Canada has two official languages: French and English. Let us remember that and stick to the basics.

Both languages are equal under the law. They are both equal if I go before a judge; the law written in French is just as good as the law written in English. That is very important. Very few countries have that. We are blessed to be in a country with two official languages. One can revert to the laws in French.

[Translation]

I do not know if that answers your question, but yes, we will send the bill back as quickly as possible.

Hon. Roméo Antonius Dallaire: I thank Senator Comeau for moving forward with the debate on this bill, which is no doubt complex. I will not start to debate the issue of whether 1604 counts more than 1608, but as Senator Dawson said, in those years, we stayed all winter.

I have a question about two points that you raised: the issues of measured approach and significant demand. Was the introduction of the bilingualism act in 1968 motivated by a measured approach, or did it turn out to be a revolutionary measure and considered as such for years in many areas?

The bill that Senator Chaput is sponsoring is perhaps not on the same scale as the 1968 legislation, but it is still rather significant and governments should be prepared to study it. The argument for a measured approach should not indicate a refusal, but should instead show the government's desire to respond to a need.

Now for my second point, which has to do with "significant demand." I was one of the first graduates of the military college after the new bilingualism legislation was passed in 1969. I worked for 36 years in the Armed Forces.

My friends on the show Tout le monde en parle often laugh at my accent that seems to be very anglicized. Why? Because I worked for 36 years in a department that, according to the law, was bilingual but where, in reality, English was the primary language. If you could not write in English, you would not get anywhere. Documents are always handed out with the note, "French version later." And "later" is a long time. That is what happens in our departments.

To get back to my point of significant demand, French-speaking soldiers clearly said that they would no longer go into combat and put their lives in danger in the language of the officers, as was done during both world wars and the Korean War. From now on, it will be done in the language of the troops. That is significant demand, but it is possible to circumvent the application of the act in the Department of National Defence. We now have unilingual officers commanding French troops.

What has been brought up is important and deserves to be studied carefully in committee. We must stop dancing around the issue.

(1710)

Senator Comeau: Senator Dallaire taught me something today. I always understood significant demand to mean the demand where there was a geographic community, within certain boundaries, in which a certain number of the minority were living, whether it was anglophones living in Quebec or francophones living outside Quebec. I always understood significant demand to be a geographic issue related to the number of people living in a particular geographic area.

Senator Dallaire taught me today that significant demand applies to the military. This is new to me. I am very impressed to learn this. However, I do not know how it applies to the military since we are talking about an institution rather than a geographic region.

This is how the concept of significant demand can become complicated. Will the suggestions made by Senator Chaput, who I believe was speaking about a geographic community, apply to the military community? These are good questions that could be raised in committee.

Hon. Fernand Robichaud: Honourable senators, before I ask Senator Comeau my question, I would like to respond to Senator Dallaire's question. The answer is 1604.

Senator Dallaire: Absolutely. We humbly look to you.

Senator Robichaud: I also deduce that Senator Dallaire did learn to write in English, as proven by his excellent advancement in the ranks of the Canadian Forces. Bravo!

I would like to come back to Senator Comeau's statement, which at the beginning, skilfully extolled all the virtues of Senator Chaput, as we know her. He spoke about her good intentions, which I also praise.

I know that Senator Comeau has great influence over the honourable senators on his side of the chamber and that he clearly indicated that he is prepared to see this bill sent to committee so that it can be examined and, more specifically, so that witnesses from the various language communities can come and speak to us.

Is Senator Comeau prepared to use his great influence among his honourable colleagues to ensure that this bill is sent to committee now? We could save some time.

Senator Dallaire: Absolutely. Go for it. Go right ahead.

Senator Robichaud: We could move forward and consult communities to round out this bill. I am begging Senator Comeau to use his great influence so that we can take action immediately.

Senator Comeau: There is a man who knows how to sing the praises of others and to flatter me.

We will try to send the bill to committee as quickly as we can. I am extremely interested in the bill. Senator Chaput raised some important points. We should give ourselves the opportunity to examine the principle of the bill at second reading in the Senate.

As you can see, I support the principle of the bill and I will suggest to my colleagues that it be sent to committee. I believe it is important to have further debate at second reading so that senators can ask questions of one another. We will hear from witnesses who come from all over. I believe that Senator Chaput will provide a complete list of witnesses. We will get there before too long.

(On motion of Senator Marshall, debate adjourned.)