Official Languages Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Once again, welcome to this beautiful room.

We will now begin the public part of today's meeting and I would like to ask Mr. Bélanger to discuss his motion, which reads as follows:

That the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages be invited to participate in the consultations on linguistic duality and official languages plan for January, 2008.

Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand that the government as well as some of my colleagues may be somewhat reluctant to support this motion, but I would like to take two or three minutes to explain why I am bringing it forward.

First, we are discussing the renewal of the Action Plan for Official Languages, an exercise that will be headed by Mr. Lord—and some may feel that this appointment was rather hasty, something that I might agree with—on behalf of the government. Nevertheless, it will be going ahead. I am somewhat concerned because these consultations are being held in camera. I believe that committee members who wish to do so should be able to take part in the session that is scheduled to be held sometime in January. I don't have the dates. I imagine that representatives from various national organizations will be invited to attend the meeting.

Secondly, at the time the government had undertaken, as part of the action plan, to provide for two consultation rounds annually, one in the spring in order to allow officials to meet with representatives of the relevant organizations, and another in the fall, not only with the Minister responsible for Official Languages, but with a selection of ministers. On two occasions, when I was the Minister responsible for Official Languages, these consultations were held in the spring and in the fall, and each time, a good dozen ministers were in attendance, namely, those who were the most concerned with certain issues or the ministers with whom community groups wished to meet.

Thirdly, whenever I organized these government consultations, I gladly made it a point to invite the opposition party critics. I remember that some members of this committee, two of them in fact, did attend. What is great about these meetings is that they allow members to better relate to the communities and provide them with an understanding of the communities' concerns.

I don't remember anyone ever criticizing the fact that opposition party representatives with concerns about linguistic duality and our communities were able to take part in these meeting. The list of attendees was quite varied, and there was an added benefit with the participation of opposition members.

That is why, in planning the future work of the committee, I thought it might be useful to allow members who wish to do so to take part in the session that will be held sometime in January 2008.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

I am prepared to entertain comments on this motion.

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I understand the rationale behind Mr. Bélanger's proposal. However, our attendance at the ad hoc meeting, when we don't necessarily believe in the process, would likely appear to be an endorsement. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against the motion. We simply don't see what this ad hoc committee will accomplish. On the other hand, here, we will have not secret, but public, enlightened and transparent meetings which will be attended by witnesses who wish to openly discuss the second Official Languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would also like to say a few words. I will not be supporting the motion. It has nothing to do with Mr. Bélanger. This is how I see the situation. The government has shown no respect for this committee. After all of the studies that we have done and all of the data that minority communities in Canada have provided, the government—and I call it the “new” government, even if it has been in office for two years now — appointed someone from New Brunswick.

Even though I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Lord, in my opinion, the Francophonie lost a great deal of ground in New Brunswick when he was the Premier. I have no intention of asking him to help me or the francophone communities. I think that appointing a former premier with a specific agenda to meet with communities behind closed doors is an insult to Canadians and to the Francophonie.

From the very outset of these meetings, I have been in touch with some members of francophone communities. At each meeting, they ask me about the Court Challenges Program. The content of these meetings chaired by Mr. Lord will not be made public. The Prime Minister gave Mr. Lord a specific mandate. It isn't a commission or a committee: it is simply an individual criss-crossing the country. I don't think that carries very much weight.

If there is a motion that I would be prepared to support, it would be to ask Mr. Lord to appear before parliamentarians who have been elected by the Canadian people. He could appear before us. Then, we could ask him about the meetings that he has held and the reasons why he was appointed. I would be prepared to ask him to appear before the committee under those conditions. We must not forget that we have been elected, whereas he has been appointed by the Prime Minister. I have spoken to representatives of groups who have stated publicly that they would agree to meet with Mr. Lord, and that it was a good thing. They knew that if they were to say the opposite, the government would come down hard on them. They are somewhat reluctant to attend these meetings. I am not prepared to lower myself to that level.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Are there any other comments on this motion?

If the committee is in agreement, we will proceed to the vote. I will re-read the motion:

That the members of the Standing Committee on Official Languages be invited to participate in the Consultations on Linguistic Duality and Official Languages planned for January, 2008.

(The motion is defeated).

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin.

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

I would like to raise a point. I am thinking of presenting a motion at the next meeting.

I have been a member of the official languages committee since 1999. Until now, whenever a meeting with the minister was scheduled, the clerk and the members of the committee made an effort to reserve a room with equipment that would allow the meeting to be televised. That was always our custom here in Parliament. To our great surprise, we are scheduled to meet in room 253, which has the television cameras. I will be the first one to admit that we should have clearly indicated that the meeting would not be televised, but in the past, we always ensured that the meetings would be broadcast.

Let me tell you what happened to me that morning. Usually, when the proceedings are not televised, the cameras are against the wall...

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

Point of order. I'd like to return to today's agenda and discuss the work that we have to do. I believe we have strayed from the subject at hand. Mr. Godin's difficulties with televised or non-televised meetings are not my problem. I am interested in what we are going to be doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Harvey. I believe that is a point of debate.

I will recap for the benefit of committee members. We have covered all of the points on today's agenda. The next step involves future work, and exchanges. I would like to ask Mr. Godin to finish his comment.

Mr. Godin.

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

I read the agenda and I thought the time had come to make comments. I don't want to get ahead of the agenda, but I thought we were at other business.

That morning, when the minister appeared, we were in a room where broadcasting was available. Parliament has always wanted committee meetings to be as transparent as possible. I'm not blaming anyone, but if we don't set out clear rules now, we will be lost in that shuffle.

For example, being in a room with cameras and not televising the meeting was totally unacceptable. We have one chance in a thousand to have that type of room with everything that is happening in the House. We had the room, but the cameras were not turned on. That means that we are not providing transparency for the Canadian people.

I am advising the committee that at the next meeting I will be tabling a motion so that when a minister, the Official Languages Commissioner, or an important public figure appears before the committee, it will not be considered part of the committee's regular agenda. We took great pains to ensure that we would be in a room where broadcasting would be possible. If we are in a committee room that makes it possible for the meeting to be broadcast, then that is what should be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin, for sharing your point of view with us.

Mr. Petit.

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

I would like to add something to what Mr. Godin has said. He is indeed correct, but there is no need for him to table a motion. The rules provide for televised meetings whenever a minister appears as a witness, at least in all of the cases with which I am familiar. There are two or three meeting rooms with cameras.

I am in total agreement with Mr. Godin. It should have been televised. I agree with him, but do we really need a motion for that? Surely our clerks are clever enough to deal with this problem?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I will ask the clerk for clarification.

The clerk informs me that this is an unwritten practice, and that at the last meeting, committee members did not necessarily express a preference.

I think that a motion could perhaps clarify things, so that...

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like a clarification. We are discussing future business. Would a motion be in order now? Must I give a 48-hour notice? We are discussing future business and we could deal with this now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Precisely. Mr. Godin, if you were to move a motion this morning, it would be in order. We could discuss it.

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

This is what I had in mind: when a minister or the Official Languages Commissioner is scheduled to appear before the committee, or even when our work deals with certain files, whenever possible, the clerk should reserve a meeting room with television cameras so that the meeting can be televised.

I'm not sure if that is the correct wording.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

What you are saying is that if the minister or the Commissioner of Official Languages is called to appear before the committee, the meeting will be televised.

Is that it?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Whenever...

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

Whenever possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Whenever possible. That is what you said.

Are there any questions or comments on Mr. Godin's motion?

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

I would also like to include any subjects of particular interest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

And subjects of a particular interest.

In that case, Mr. Godin, just to clarify, would you like...