Thursday, 24 March 2011 00:00
Official Languages Act
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. Elizabeth (Beth) Marshall: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill S-220. I have listened with interest to the senators who have spoken previously on this bill. Senator Chaput spoke eloquently about her background and her heritage. She spoke of the progress made over the past 40 years since the Official Languages Act was passed, but she also spoke of the pressures on some communities and people to assimilate. She spoke of the obligations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically section 20, as well as Part IV of the Official Languages Act.
I do agree with Senator Chaput in that legislation needs to be reviewed regularly. Things change and legislation must be reviewed to ensure it has met its initial objectives, and assessed to determine if new objectives should be established or whether amendments are required. However, I feel that Bill S-220 goes too far, especially as it will affect the private sector, provincial and municipal governments and the RCMP. The bill needs to be reviewed thoroughly so that we will know, before it is enacted, exactly what its impact will be on all these organizations.
(1740)
Senator Chaput spoke positively about developments in a number of provinces. She spoke about my home Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, where there is a minister responsible for francophone affairs. We have a francophone school board. The education system in Newfoundland and Labrador offers students the opportunity to study in French. Many students in Newfoundland and Labrador, including my own three children, have graduated from high school fully bilingual.
Newfoundland and Labrador has a francophonie community on the West Coast of the province and the province maintains a close relationship with the French colonies of St. Pierre and Miquelon, about 20 kilometres off our South Coast. Students from St. Pierre and Miquelon visit Newfoundland and Labrador often, participate in sports such as swimming, and, alternatively, many students from Newfoundland and Labrador visit St. Pierre and Miquelon. We also have a small francophonie population in Labrador.
Senator Champagne, when she spoke on this bill, could obviously relate to Senator Chaput's experiences. Like Senator Champagne, I feel Bill S-220 goes too far. While Air Canada has existing legal obligations - and this is one of the issues raised during debate - under the Official Languages Act, of course it should comply with those obligations.
When Senator Comeau spoke, he raised an issue with which I agree, and it relates to the costs of these amendments. Private member's bills cannot authorize new government expenditures. The question that must be answered is how will the costs of these amendments be funded? Also, since private member's bills cannot authorize new federal government expenditures, can these bills commit the private sector, as well as provincial and municipal governments, to new expenditures?
Honourable senators, Bill S-220 will have an impact all across this country, as it will affect private sector companies, provincial and municipal governments, and the RCMP. Who knows exactly how these institutions will be affected? Who will pay the additional costs?
The first clause of Bill S-220 amends section 3 of the Official Languages Act by adding to the organizations subject to the Official Languages Act. Right now, the act applies to federal Crown corporations, federal government departments, and other federal institutions such as the Senate and the House of Commons.
Specifically, Bill S-220 as it reads now is proposing to expand these organizations to include "designated carriers," which provide rail, maritime and air transportation and related services. The definition is so broad it will pick up private sector carriers. For example, in Newfoundland and Labrador this would include some small airlines. To impose the Official Languages Act on private sector organizations without consultation would be, in my opinion, quite historic. We do not know the implications of the proposed bill, but it will probably add costs to those companies. Will these companies survive once additional expenditures are added to their operations?
In addition to the impact on the private sector, Bill S-220 also extends into the jurisdiction of the provincial and municipal governments. Specifically, section 1 of Bill S-220 expands the institutions covered by the Official Languages Act to "provincial or territorial institutions." That would include, among other things, provincial and territorial government departments, provincial and territorial Crown corporations, and municipal institutions.
Honourable senators, I could not support any bill which expands the Official Languages Act to include the provinces, territories or municipalities within Canada without consultations or discussions with the concerned parties.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, we also have about 15 interprovincial ferry services operated by the provincial government. What will be the impact on these services?
Section 22(2) as it relates to the RCMP is especially problematic. Section 22(2) is a new section that will now require the RCMP to communicate with and provide services to the public in either official language "on those portions of the Trans-Canada Highway served by its detachments." Before this section is passed into law, we need to know the implications for the RCMP, especially in terms of staffing and costs. For example, in Newfoundland and Labrador the RCMP patrols most sections of the Trans-Canada Highway. Will bilingual officers be required, for example, as in Clarenville, which is primarily an anglophone area? Do the signs on the highways need to be bilingual?
I looked up some information on the RCMP while I was researching this bill. The information that I obtained on the RCMP in Newfoundland and Labrador is that there are over 500 members and 69 per cent of the RCMP officers serving in the province of Newfoundland were born in Newfoundland and Labrador. Given the fact that we are primarily an anglophone community, I would say that the majority of those members are not bilingual. If this bill is enacted, this will be especially problematic for the RCMP.
Of special concern is the fact that the cost of services provided by the RCMP is cost shared by the federal and provincial governments. My recollection is that the bulk of the cost is borne by the provincial government; I think my memory serves me right. This will have a major impact on the expenditures of the provincial government. That is another area of concern.
Honourable senators, the last sections I want to talk about are proposed sections 24(1)(a)(i) and (a)(ii). Proposed subsection 24(1) states:
Every federal institution or designated carrier has the duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate in either official language with, and obtain available services in either official language from, any of its offices or facilities in Canada or elsewhere.
It then goes on to state:
(a)(i) in any circumstances prescribed by regulation of the Governor in Council where the services in question significantly affect or benefit the English or French linguistic minority population in a given geographic area;
That is the new section. It seems that, at any point in time now, the Governor-in-Council can come out with regulations that would have a significant impact. They do not even have to put it in legislation; it will just be in regulations. If this bill goes through, new regulations may come out next year that would really open things up. The following proposed paragraph 24(1)(a)(ii) states:
(a)(ii) in any circumstances prescribed by regulation of the Governor in Council, relating to the loss of the language or linguistic assimilation, where the application of this subsection is likely to lead to the revitalization or advancement of the use of the language of the English or French linguistic minority population;
That is quite a big area that would open up and the Governor-in-Council would probably be prescribing some major change. That is also of concern to me.
Honourable senators, those were some of my concerns. Being a new senator, I found that in my research I spent a bit of time going through the Official Languages Act, the proposed bill and many other issues. I was very interested in it. I do look forward to when this bill goes to committee because of some of the issues that concern me. I am looking forward to hearing what witnesses have to say about the proposed amendments.
The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Further debate?
[Translation]
Hon. Maria Chaput: Would the honourable senator agree to answer a question?
Senator Marshall: Yes.
Senator Chaput: Honourable senators, I truly appreciated the presentation given by Senator Marshall. I must say that I have the utmost respect for her, for who she is and for her integrity. I truly appreciate her participation in the debate on Bill S-220.
The Honourable Senator Marshall said that the bill goes too far and that it must be thoroughly reviewed.
(1750)
She made several points that show that she did her research. She said, at the very end, that she would be interested in listening to the debate that could take place during a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
If I understand Senator Marshall correctly, she would be prepared to vote in favour of sending Bill S-220 to a Senate committee. Is that correct?
[English]
Senator Marshall: Yes, I would support that, but I would not like to deny other senators the opportunity to participate in the debate.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: That is a very good idea. The senator understands that the view we take in Canada is that of "equal status, equal rights" under the Official Languages Act.
Senator Marshall spoke about cost and I understand her concern. However, does the honourable senator not believe that there are innovative ways of providing services and that, during a debate in committee, we could find ways of providing better services that would not necessarily cost more?
Does Senator Marshall, who has been an accountant, believe that this would be possible?
[English]
Senator Marshall: Yes, I think that most witnesses who appear before the committee would come up with other options.
I have concerns in two areas. First, it seems to be putting a lot onto the private sector without hearing from them. For example, off the top of my head, I can think of two provincial airlines in Newfoundland and Labrador. Their websites are bilingual, but being covered by the Official Languages Act might have an impact on their cost of operations, and that is of concern to me. I would not want to drive a private sector company out of business.
The other area that concerns me is the RCMP. That service costs the provincial government a significant amount of money. I am concerned about the cost the provincial government would have to pick up, as well as about the impact on human resources. If 70 per cent of the members of the RCMP in Newfoundland and Labrador are from the province, I would confidently say that the majority of them are not bilingual. I am concerned about how a change such as this would be implemented and affect those members.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Does Senator Marshall recognize that, under the Official Languages Act, the federal government has a responsibility to support the growth and development of minority francophone and Acadian communities?
[English]
Senator Marshall: I was aware of that.
As honourable senators know, Newfoundland is primarily anglophone. I am aware of the term "significant demand," which I believe is defined in regulations. The Trans-Canada Highway in Newfoundland and Labrador goes primarily through anglophone communities. Therefore, does that fulfil the requirement of "significant demand," and does this bill take "significant demand" into consideration?
[Translation]
Hon. Percy Mockler: Honourable senators, in order to continue this discussion, and in a spirit of innovation and cooperation, I move the adjournment of the debate.
(On motion of Senator Mockler, debate adjourned.)