Official Languages Committee on Feb. 24th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this meeting.

I would first like to acknowledge the presence of the Honourable Hélène Chalifour-Scherrer and her group. Hélène is a former Canadian Heritage minister.

Dear friends, let's begin.

This is a little at the last minute. The people we invited for the first hour, including the representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, were not able to join us. We have tried alternatives, which did not work either.

At the last meeting, we talked about the topics to be studied in the coming weeks. In the first hour, we will go over that list to determine which topics we should address first.

In the second hour, we will hear from Hubert Lussier, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage, and Jean-Pierre C. Gauthier, Director General, Official Languages Branch.

I think the clerk provided you with a list of the topics that we identified at the last meeting. Perhaps you could add two points, the first being the bilingualism of the members of Parliament. I am not sure whether I discussed this matter with you last time, but it would be absolutely wonderful if all members of Parliament were bilingual within four years.

We will be asking the person responsible for official languages in Parliament to meet with us. In the meantime, I can provide you with a few figures. For information purposes, the 78 MPs from Quebec usually speak both official languages and that is the case for at least 30 or so MPs from outside Quebec, which adds up to about 100. I am told that approximately 126 MPs are taking language courses right now, which makes 226 MPs. We could try to figure out how to encourage our colleagues to become bilingual, so that within four years all the MPs are bilingual. I think it would be amazing to have a bilingual Parliament. We could add that item.

In terms of the other point, I noted during the last meeting that, according to the latest studies, the United States has 10 million francophones and francophiles. That number is higher than the total number of francophones in Canada. I was informed that Régis Labeaume, the mayor of Quebec City, was very interested in following up on that issue. He wanted to turn Quebec City into the francophone capital of America. We could ask Mr. Labeaume to appear to explain his project and share his ideas with us. We could add those two points to the list.

Would anyone else like to add new points to the list before we delve into the details of the topics proposed at the last meeting and sort them out?

Mr. Choquette, the floor is yours.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Chair, I find the exercise a bit contradictory, so to speak, given the information we received on Monday.

On Monday, we were not even sure whether we wanted to study the Translation Bureau issue right away. We wanted to hear from the speakers before prioritizing the topics. I have no objection to discussing what the priorities are for us, but I think we talked about them at the last meeting. If we agree that the idea is to listen first to the participants before we determine our priorities based on their presentations, I think it is a little counterproductive, if I may say so, to prioritize the proposed topics right away because we will then have to go over them again.

Of course, I have priorities to propose. However, someone—I think it was Mr. Lefebvre—said how important it is to listen to the presenters to prepare a list in order of priority. We can discuss things in broad terms, but it's a different story to make commitments as to the exact order of the given studies without even knowing whether the proponents have other priorities to propose. I think that flies in the face of what was decided by consensus on Monday. Perhaps my view is not shared. I suggest that we think about this before we start prioritizing the issues.

That being said, let me go back to the point I mentioned before. On Monday—you were not here, Mr. Bélanger, but Mr. Fergus represented you—we heard two members of the committee move a motion to give precedence to the study on the Translation Bureau. I supported that motion in your absence. Of course, for me, that must be the first priority, given that this translation tool will be installed on all government computers starting on April 1. My understanding is that there is a real controversy about this tool. One of its designers specifically said that it is useful only for reading, not for writing. However, it seems that the instructions encourage its use even for writing short emails.

Given that a motion has already been passed, I think this should be considered a priority. In this case, there is no need to wait for the proponents, because members of the committee from all parties reached a consensus on Monday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you very much, François.

Steven, go ahead.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to extend greetings to the members of the committee and say that today I am replacing our colleague Ms. Boucher. I am here in passing, but it is a privilege for me to be here with you. I am pleased to be here also because I had the chance to sit on this committee for a few years. There is even a minister among us in the audience.

Mr. Chair, let me remind everyone of the important role of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I see him sort of as the steward of the Canadian francophonie. He is also a friend of the committee. I see that you are planning to invite him. He has sound knowledge of the issues and could certainly advise the members of the committee on how to prioritize the work. My recommendation would therefore be that the committee consult the commissioner so that he can discuss his report, of course, but also share his expertise and advice regarding the issues on which the members of the committee might want to focus their work.

Going back to your suggestion, I must say that, in the past, we sometimes carried out a longer-term study interspersed with ad hoc meetings, depending on the availability of the witnesses or the issues we were dealing with. You mentioned the role that Quebec City intends to play as part of the francophonie. That topic could definitely be of interest to the members of the committee and be addressed at ad hoc meetings. For instance, we had a somewhat more robust study on second language education, and we were able to incorporate more specific issues.

Let me reiterate that the Commissioner of Official Languages is truly a valuable resource. I think the Standing Committee on Official Languages is privileged to have access to the commissioner, his resources and his expertise to orient its work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Thank you.

I would like to clarify something about the Commissioner of Official Languages. We are planning to meet with him on March 23.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

That is soon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Yes, March 23 is quite soon.

We have just received the responsibility of auditing, no more no less, the estimates of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. I actually wanted to talk about it with you today to see whether the committee wants to hear the commissioner's testimony on that. We can also have two meetings with him, one to find out where he is at and where he is headed, and the other for his estimates. What do you think?

[Paul Lefebvre, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

I think some members of the committee are fairly familiar with his role, but we would like to know how his office operates, who the employees are and what they do, given that there are offices across Canada. As I have said before, we are reviewing his budget and we want to understand the substance of the commissioner's work across Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

We could hold two meetings: one on March 23 for him to tell us about his activities, and one for us to ask him about his budget.

Does that work for you?

Darrell, go ahead.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Chair, I am not sure whether we decided to hold two meetings or a full two-hour meeting, with the first hour for his activities and the second for his budget. If we then realize that we need a little more time, we can always invite him again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Darrell is proposing that we do that in two hours of the same meeting. Do you agree?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Go ahead, François.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

I support Mr. Samson's suggestion. However, I would add that, despite the fact that we would be able to have the commissioner with us for two hours, it would be good to have other witnesses. We might only take one hour to ask the commissioner questions. If there were other witnesses, we could also ask them questions. That is my proposal.

Come to think of it, we have enough discussion topics to have the commissioner appear only for a two-hour meeting.

On Monday, we discussed suggestions for witnesses to appear in the short term. The Quebec anglophone minority association, Quebec Community Groups Network, was mentioned. Do we have any news about the date when those folks are available? We also talked about the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, FCFA, which you mentioned a few minutes ago, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Yes.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

When do we think we can meet with them?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I am told that we have contacted those organizations and that the committee will be ready to hear from them on March 9. First, from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., we will hear from the Quebec Community Groups Network, the anglophone group from Quebec. In the second hour, we will hear from the representatives of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

That's great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

They are coming on March 9.

Does that answer your question?

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, but I would like to have the floor again.

I have recently talked to your assistant about another witness who would be appropriate to invite. Both the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Treasury Board prepare reports on the official languages. They both have responsibilities in that respect. Today, we have asked to hear from officials from the Department of Canadian Heritage, which is very good. I know that you invited an official from the Treasury Board, which was not possible today. In that case, would it be possible to invite the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Brison, to provide us with an update on the focus of his activities?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Things are going very well. We have a great clerk.

I can confirm that, on March 7, we will be receiving representatives from the Treasury Board and the Translation Bureau.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

That's very good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

Things are going well.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have another question.

Does the committee have to approve the expenditures for its activities?

[The Chair, Liberal, Denis Paradis]

I am glad you asked. I just took part in a meeting of the Liaison Committee, which brings together all the chairs of the various committees. We were asked to promptly submit an operating budget for the year. The budget is divided into two: first we have our regular activities, including our meetings, and second, we have the travel budgets.

We talked about the travel budget before. Let me give you a rundown on the situation, since we asked for clarifications at the Liaison Committee meeting. This committee's travel budget for 2010-2011 was about $100,000. Over the subsequent years, nothing has been spent on travel at all.

Having consulted with a number of you, I was proposing to hold meetings in four different places over this year. We could go out west, to Saint Boniface, perhaps come back through Sudbury, Ontario, go to Quebec, in the Eastern Townships, where there is a minority group, and perhaps end up in Nova Scotia, the home province of our friend Mr. Samson, a member of the committee.

I am trying to cover Canada's various regions as much as possible. We cannot do everything, but if we are looking at travelling to those four centres this year, we can ask the clerk to prepare a budget proposal that I could submit to the Liaison Committee as soon as possible.

Some also said that we might benefit from going to those places while the House is sitting. If so, I ask for your co-operation so that all the party whips can ensure that the travelling delegation is balanced, given the votes in the House.

Does that work?