Official Languages Committee on June 16th, 2009

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

We have to stop criticizing each other or tossing the ball back and forth or blaming partisan politics, government officials or whoever. We want to solve the problem.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

That's not what you're doing?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I'm requesting a minimum level of politeness, Mr. Galipeau.

Mr. Chairman, we want to get to the bottom of this matter and to debate the issue. Apart from debate, we want the problem to be solved here. That's what we want, and we won't solve it until we understand what is going on.

Is it because there aren't enough officials or is there an absence of political will? I don't know, and I'm not making a judgment today. I'm not saying why things are that way, but I want to know and I want us to solve this problem. That's the reason behind the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

Ms. Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

The government is conducting a study on this subject because we also have concerns. So we want to help you as soon as possible. I assure you this is not a political response.

For my part, I believe in the Francophonie, in your investments and your efforts, and I frankly congratulate you.

However, with regard to the motion, I am concerned by the question of “the impacts” because that means that we'll be introducing witnesses who will tell us how this has affected them and so on.

There's a measure of urgency, and we don't really have time to invite all of these organizations back to say how it's impacting you. We know it's impacting you all. I think we can agree that it's impacting you negatively. We want to figure out how to fix it, so I think we should study the delays and how we can

improve those delays.

Every organization is going to come in and say they want it sooner, and I think we can agree on that. I don't think we have to bring 50 witnesses in and delay other very important studies we have to do to improve official languages in our country.

That is my concern. Then we'll have to talk about a date. We only have one meeting left, and it will be impossible to do anything by the one meeting. I agree with Monsieur Rodriguez in principle and in spirit, with slight amendments so it's not based on the organizations, because I truly believe, and we all agree, that they're all impacted negatively.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Glover.

We now go to Mr. Galipeau.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chairman, there have been some discussions. If you ask, you'll see that Mr. Rodriguez agrees to my seconding his motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I don't think we need a seconder. I thank you for your offer, Mr. Galipeau. I'll take note of that.

Now we'll go to Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I'm in favour of the motion. I nevertheless want us to remember that Mr. Semianiw was to come and meet with us to talk about the transformation model. If I understood correctly, he can't be here next Thursday. So it's deferred to our next meeting, which could be held in June, July, August, September or October. I hope we can meet with him at the committee's next meeting when he is available. I want us to study that. That meeting is very important.

Do our Liberal Party colleagues agree to hold this meeting depending when Mr. Semianiw is available?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

We would like to meet him.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

That's what we expected. In that context, Mr. Chairman, there's no problem.

In addition, we're talking about a study—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

—for the purpose of making changes as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, it's your turn.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm in favour of the motion. I know this is an emergency.

Furthermore, the government will have the opportunity to consult the committee blues and to see everything that is going on.

With respect to National Defence, we already had that subject on the agenda.

You don't conduct a study in one day. You have to do something serious. I don't want to play politics, but every time you make a comment, we believe it's political.

This isn't something that's been going on for two or three years; it's been going on a long time. What's missing in a good study? What are the officials going to tell us? Will they tell us why they can't respond on time? How can we adapt? We need answers. We have to be able to have a dialogue together to try to find solutions and make recommendations. That's why I'm supporting the motion. We mustn't conceal the fact, the House will probably be adjourning by the end of the week, unless the committee wants to sit in July. That's possible. I hope that, at the start of business, we'll begin by studying this subject and that we'll try to work with our communities to find a solution to this problem which has been around for years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

The four political parties have expressed their support for the motion.

Mr. Galipeau.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

I had—

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

—a detail.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Petit, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The motion is very broad, and I support it. And we could even go as fast as possible at the first opportunity.

Mr. Godin seems to mean that someone has a problem, and that it's them or that it's us. Politically, that causes a problem. You have to look at the machine. How is it that it is having trouble handling the organizations' applications? Are there too many stages to go through before the decision is made? That's what we have to know.

If we want to give them an adequate response, we can't simply say they're responsible, or that we are. We have to know why the machine doesn't work. How is it that, when organizations file an application, there are perhaps 25 stages to go through and delays? That's what I want to know.

If that's Mr. Rodriguez' goal, if that's what we have to examine, we must make a recommendation to reduce the number of stages. We have to be able to make a recommendation. I don't agree that we should come up with a recommendation such as, “It's them or it's us.” I want to be able to study the machine, to invite officials to testify, to ask them how they operate when they receive an application, where they then send it, who responds, how much time it takes between the two of them, why it isn't ready on time, why a decision can't be given in one month. Perhaps there's a problem in the machine. That's what we have to study. If there is one, we have to find a solution.

I agree with Mr. Rodriguez, but we have to proceed precisely and exhaustively in order to come to a solution. Consequently, the people who have testified this morning will be able to say that it's very possible they won't get it this year, but that, on the first occasion, there may perhaps be a meeting where we'll be able to find a solution. That's what I want. I believe Mr. Rodriguez wants that as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Mr. Rodriguez, go ahead, please.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

In conclusion, I would like to speak briefly about two points. First, I am entirely aware that we can't conduct a study in one meeting. So I know that it will be done in the fall. That said, if it's done in the fall, we'll have to make structural changes. There is a slight delay, but if, through the study, we could at least prevent that from happening in the coming years, that will already be an enormous step forward.

The second point I wanted to raise refers to what Mr. Petit and others have mentioned. This study and the motion are very broad because I wanted them to be broad. We're going to look everywhere. There will be no political finger-pointing. There may be political content, discussions that focus on political will, just as we may talk about the mechanisms that must be respected. You'll be able to help us on that point. We will ask officials to testify who will explain to us how things work internally.

When the application is received, to whom is it transferred? Does it stay on top of a pile or is it sent to someone else? We don't know anything about all that. It's broad because we have to get to the bottom of things in order to understand exactly what happens inside the government machine. It's not to point the finger at someone, but rather to change things so this doesn't happen again. That's the purpose of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Ms. Glover, would you like to add something?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I'd like to get some clarification from Mr. Rodriguez. When he talks about summoning witnesses, is he still talking about witnesses like the FCFA? That will slow down what we want to do. We can invite 50 or 100 witnesses, but they'll all say that it takes too much time. We'll have to have officials from the region testify, and Treasury Board representatives. There will be an operation. We already have a lot of witnesses just talking about the people who operate the machine.

These witnesses really want to get their money. Inviting 50 or 100 witnesses who repeat the same thing—you presented your situation very well—will slow down the study, and people will suffer as a result. I'd like to do everything possible to avoid that.

So I would like to invite witnesses who can explain to us what you said, Mr. Rodriguez. How do they proceed? Where are the challenges? Where could challenges be eliminated?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Glover.

Allow me simply to recall that normally, when the committee decides to examine a subject, we first have to make the decision to do so, which seems to be the committee's wish. Then committee members provide a witness list. It is presented to committee members, we decide on the number of meetings we want to devote to the study, and we agree on a witness list. At this point, if committee members agree on the principle, we should adopt the motion.

Are committee members ready to vote on the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.