Official Languages Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

The final report could be substantially different from the draft. You have to be careful. It's absolutely legitimate for our researchers to prepare a draft when we appear to be finishing the meetings with the witnesses. I say that to point out that the report won't be definitely approved before all the witnesses have been heard.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

That doesn't prevent the fact that we're nevertheless working—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

One moment, please. Let Mr. Bélanger finish his answer; then it will be Mr. Godin's turn.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I wouldn't want people reading or listening to this exchange to get the impression that it's not important to hear the witnesses or that what they say isn't taken into consideration, on the contrary.

I would like to make a second point. With regard to the minister's appearance, I am perfectly aware that ministers have fairly busy schedules, as we all do. An accommodation must be made. I agree with the colleagues who answered your question, Mr. Harvey: it isn't unusual for a minister to appear more often at certain times. We've handled two or three files one after the other. There were the parliamentary appropriations that had to be approved, the Court Challenges study, and now we're working to prepare the plan. If, at some point, some sort of bill is referred to us, concerning Air Canada, for example, and the subject is discussed here, the minister could be summoned at that time as well—it might not be that minister in particular. This is common practice. It's just that the present period is very busy; that's all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger. You mentioned that at the outset, and it's true: it is good to remind all members that we are holding a public meeting and that the report is confidential.

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Chairman, the report is indeed confidential, but I think Mr. Harvey can remember—if he was in committee at the time; otherwise he can consult the blues—that we've had the same discussion in the past. At the time, we wanted to hear a new witness and stop conducting the study or preparing the report. We said then that we would add a short meeting to receive the minister.

Some questions require an answer or have to be clarified before our report is written, particularly since the representatives of the departments very clearly said in camera that they weren't responsible for this or that they didn't know what was going on. I think we need to know where the government is headed.

We could meet with the minister in the evening. As she is responsible for official languages, I can't believe the committee isn't important to her. So I'm sure she'll be so kind as to want to come and meet with this wonderful committee, especially on Valentine's Day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

We'll now hand over to Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This discussion started because some committee members weren't sure who had this responsibility. Mr. Godin therefore suggested that we invite the minister.

Now we're talking about witnesses, and I'd like to know whether we have to hear more and, if so, why. I would like to move that we invite

the Public Service Agency of Canada. We had them here.

The Canada Public Service Agency is responsible for the general management and review of official languages for all the departments.

So they actually have very specific official language responsibilities, particularly when it comes to the implementation of official languages within the departments, within the public service. I have a couple of concerns. The first is that if the minister comes, my colleagues may ask many questions about the official languages plan, what's coming and what are the priorities. Of course, she won't be able to comment on that. In our Speech from the Throne we have reiterated

our commitment to the action plan. However, the minister won't be able to go into details. That's why Bernard Lord conducted those consultations across the country and why we decided to conduct our own on the priorities, successes and challenges involved in implementating the last version of the action plan, which is currently being prepared.

My concern is that if we have the minister come, she will not be able to comment on the specifics of le renouvellement du plan d'action. I actually think the Public Service Agency of Canada is the one responsible, for example, for issuing directives that give effect to parts IV, V, and VI of the Official Languages Act. They are responsible for recommending regulations.

So in terms of the hands-on portion, we spoke about asking to see if we could see an organizational chart, and I think there's value in the research analyst putting together an organization chart to basically show the key players, where they fit into the implementation of the Official Languages Act within the government, and then we can have a discussion about the roles and responsibilities to make sure we invite the appropriate people. I don't think any of us wants to lose a meeting by inviting someone who will not necessarily be able to answer our questions in the detail that we will be asking.

For example, as I said, the Public Service Agency of Canada has a lot of direct hands-on responsibilities with respect to the implementation of official languages. By having them come, coupled with having the researcher put together a chart that we can look at to see who the key players are, what their roles and responsibilities are...if we still have misunderstandings, if we still have questions about who is responsible for implementing what, then that will allow us to be able to focus our questions on the appropriate person.

Mr. Chair, that's what I would like to recommend. It's part of debating Monsieur Godin's motion, but I would like to discuss this, having this agency come in, because I think they would offer valuable information.

Let me just confirm this. Was the Public Service Agency here before?

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

Yes, they were here. Madame Karen....

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, that's right.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

She could answer nothing.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Then maybe we either weren't asking the right questions or we were not pressing home what she is responsible for. I didn't hear anyone say, “You're not answering my question. Your responsibilities are this, this, and this, and I want you to comment specifically on this, this, and this.”

So if we had questions of a particular witness and they were not asked or clarified, even if they appeared before the committee previously...I think this is Monsieur Godin's argument. Monsieur Godin's argument for having the minister come back is that we want to

clarify questions. We're currently conducting a study, so more direct questions must be asked regarding our concerns, our lack of knowledge and understanding of certain matters.

So we must do that with the Public Service Agency, a representative of which appeared here, just as the minister also appeared before this committee. If we want to ask more specific questions, we could put them

to the Canada Public Service Agency. We have an opportunity.

I think this is a better use of the committee's time. They have specific responsibilities when it comes to the implementation of what it is we're looking at—the very questions we were asking at the end of the last meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.

I would like to know if you are throwing this idea on the floor to raise discussion.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Right now we're debating Monsieur Godin's motion. I'm raising it. I hope we have more discussion about it. I'd like to know what my colleagues think of this. It's in the context of that motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I have a few speakers on the list: Mr. Petit, Mr. Simard, Mr. Bélanger, Mr. Gravel, and Mr. Nadeau.

Daniel, you're on.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Thank you very much. May I begin?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

It's because we want clarification.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I received the motion, which is very simple. I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that, at the last meeting on February 12, Mr. Rodrigue Paré stated the following:

I would like to clarify one point. In the original action plan in 2003, the Commission was responsible for everything, because that was before the agency was created. Originally, in the Action Plan, the Commission was to receive $38.6 million to handle all training, bilingual capability in full. Subsequently, a portion or all of the those budgets were transferred to the agency when it was created in late 2003. The agency itself then transferred some of those budgets for the creation of the school. That's why there may have been some confusion in the mandates.

There lies the problem. In 2003, I wasn't here, but they were. We could ask some committee members—Mr. Godin, for example, our expert in the field—to testify. Mr. Godin knows everything that has happened since 2003, whereas I don't know. The report that is made public is only at the draft stage. I think Mr. Paré is right. He focused the problem precisely on that.

The problem stems from the fact that something happened in 2003. The Liberals were with the NDP, the NDP told the Liberals nothing, and the Liberals told the NDP nothing. That changed at the time of the official commission.

I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that I agree with Mr. Godin. We are at a point where we must prepare a report. I've already read this report. I hoped to be able to discuss it more quickly today. The last witnesses really surprised me. It was mainly Mr. Donald Lemaire who spoke. I thought those people were coming simply to confirm what we had observed and to tell us that we were good-looking and nice. However, he said that there was nothing. I think Mr. Godin is right. We have to know exactly where we're headed. If we have to prepare a draft and recommendations, they have to make sense so they don't wind up on shelf 13, as it's called.

I'm a member of Parliament, as you all are. After the next election we may all be here still, maybe not. It's important to leave something that makes sense. Some files appear to be in disorder. I'm not responsible for that disorder, because I wasn't here. Perhaps Mr. Bélanger, who has been here much longer than I, can explain to me why things changed in 2003 and why that should have been here. The Liberal Party definitely had to intervene at that time. Why have we gotten to this point? Why does Mr. Lemaire appear to be saying today that, because of this dispersion of authority...

Mr. Bélanger has raised some good points. He asked why it shifted from the Treasury Board to another place. As Mr. Godin said, everyone was monitoring the Treasury Board. Subsequently, it was the Privy Council Office's turn. We have to know exactly where we're headed. It's a question of governance.

We are parliamentarians; we aren't the government. We perform another function elsewhere, but here we are parliamentarians. We have to tell Parliament that the change it made in 2003 wasn't right. That doesn't mean that it will change matters, but at least we'll have put our finger on the problem. We're playing with approximately $800 million, which represents more than three-quarters of a billion dollars. I'll never earn that much money in my life. That's a lot of money, and it's a lot of workers' money.

We absolutely have to find an answer to this question, and perhaps look more deeply into this case and find out why this changed. Perhaps they were right; I don't know, and I wasn't here. Perhaps Mr. Bélanger could give us an explanation because perhaps he was a member of the Official Languages Committee.

Mr. Godin, who is here on a full-time basis, could tell us what happened in 2003. We should know. That's why I draw your attention to the fact that I think the motion is appropriate, but I think we've created an opening. I wondered whether it was right or not. I think it's right, but perhaps we should go further, but quickly, and avoiding discussing too many matters.

One question is legitimate, and it's on my mind. Why did it change in 2003? I want to know why as well. Was it a question of governance, to save money, because it was better, because more people were receiving instructions? I don't know, but I want to know. The people who are most knowledgeable about the organization chart could inform us. Once again, we come back to the damned organization chart that we should have before us. I really would have like to have it so we know where to place all our people. We've given out $800 million; I want to know how this works, how the money is distributed, to whom, in order to be sure that our fellow citizens, who will have to face the consequences of our decisions, can know whether those amounts were well spent.

Mr. Godin has said it from the start: he thinks the money is here, but is not necessarily well spent, or that it is misdirected. That's a problem. He's entitled to know, as I am, because we are parliamentarians. From what I know, the minister, Ms. Verner, wasn't here in 2000, nor was I either, nor many people who are here now. Perhaps Messrs. Bélanger and Godin could further clarify matters for us. Something happened and he's referring to it today, in 2008. Why didn't he do that in 2003? I don't know. Perhaps it would be valid to see whether we can reopen the debate before this document that we have to table in Parliament is finished, so that we can have a proper view.

I feel uncomfortable. Mr. Godin's question is very legitimate; I support him in that respect, but is Minister Verner the right person or the only person? I wonder. I don't think she's the one and only person. Perhaps we should also hear from former Liberal ministers so they can tell us why they changed that in 2003. Perhaps they had a very good reason. That's what I want to know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

We'll continue now. We're going to take the time to listen to each other.

Mr. Simard, it's your turn.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I should say the Honourable Mr. Simard and perhaps minister of a related area—

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

I agree with Mr. Petit on the first half of his remarks. However, I'm not sure where he was headed with the second. One of the problems is that there was a devolution of responsibilities to the departments. That was done in 2003. When the Liberals were in power, there was significant oversight by the Privy Council because there is a direct link with the Prime Minister. Based on the last interview, which was conducted on Tuesday, there no longer appears to be that kind of oversight. People couldn't respond.

Mr. Lemieux told us that we should perhaps have people from the Canada Public Service Agency appear again. I think they'll tell us that the changes were made at the political level, not by the public service. So we should bring in the person responsible for the political level and ask that person to explain to us how the new structure works and how they intend to control that, because there have been structural changes and no one seems to be responsible for anything. As I said the other day, I worked with Mr. Bélanger in that field. I can tell you that there is incredible resistance to the official languages in the departments. It's enough for one person to make things difficult and everything stops. As we know, not all the departments are at the same point; some are much more advanced than others.

I believe we are all people with a sense of responsibility. We don't want to waste the minister's time; we know how busy ministers are and how busy we are as well, but I think it will be difficult to finish the report without at least knowing what the structure is and whether we are comfortable with the way that's managed. I think we must now speak to the political level.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you for that brief speech, Mr. Simard.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Petit, I got the impression at one point that you were going to ask me to testify before the committee.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

That would be a pleasure for me.