Official Languages Committee on March 3rd, 2009

[Jacques Côté]

The Nemeth Code is used in Quebec and in Canada. However, it is not used in France, in Switzerland and in Belgium. Those countries use the Code Antoine. However, this code is very incomplete; it is a homemade code. Earlier, I spoke of politics. Quebec wanted to join in the standardization. In my opinion, Quebec had no business entering into complicity with la Francophonie, which has never used the Nemeth Code and still does not use it. This resulted in pushing us off to the side. We must find out what the advantages of standardization are. Show me one single advantage of standardization and I guarantee that I will become an enthusiastic defender of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Côté and Mr. Petit.

If I may, Mr. Côté, I'm going to be politically incorrect as our business draws to a close.

I'm going to be frank with you and admit that we really did go headlong into this business. Today, you have given us a fresh perspective. Initially, we hadn't intended to do a report, but since we'll be discussing future business, we'll take a look at this matter.

Ms. Gallant, you have presented the point of view of the people we represent, more specifically, minority groups. You have certainly done a lot to spark discussion.

I would also like to thank all our colleagues for the excellent round of questioning. We really got the sense that we were moving in the same direction, and that helped us to plow ahead.

It's now time to talk about our committee's business. So, I'd like to offer you my sincerest thanks on behalf of the members of the committee.

[Jacques Côté]

Thank you for listening to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

As our witnesses get ready to leave us, I'd ask you to turn to the motion which was moved in both official languages by Ms. Zarac. I'd call on Ms. Zarac to address her motion.

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

The motion is in response to the recommendations made last week by the Official Languages Commissioner, Mr. Fraser. The notice of motion states:

That the Standing Committee on Official Languages invite the President of the Treasury Board to appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to elaborate on its new functions in regard to the Official Languages Act, further to the transfer of some duties of the Canada Public Service Agency to the Treasury Board.

Shall we dispense with reading it in English?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Can you elaborate?

[Lise Zarac, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Basically, the purpose of the motion is to ensure that matters are taken seriously. Mr. Fraser told us that he had concerns regarding the transfer of some duties. So I'd like to hear from officials at Treasury Board and get assurances from them that they do indeed have the resources they need and that they are going to take any and all necessary steps. It's not always easy, when you have new responsibilities, to set priorities. It's simply a matter of ensuring there's oversight and that there's no dragging of heels.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Good.

Thank you.

I will now turn to Madame Shelly Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Thank you. I'd like to make a comment and perhaps propose an amendment.

This change of governance is far-reaching. It doesn't only affect official languages, it affects many other areas. In my opinion, the officials that are undertaking this work are the ones who are in the know and could share this information with us. That's why I want to start by inviting them. They're the ones with the knowledge. We could meet with them, and then see if it's appropriate to hear from the president.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Is that an amendment, Ms. Glover?

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Yes it is, I move that we begin by inviting Treasury Board officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I'll now entertain comments on the amendment.

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

If I've understood correctly, you're talking about Mr. Toews and his officials. Is that right? It is, isn't it? So, goodbye Mr. Toews, and hello officials.

Mr. Chair, I'm going to oppose this amendment. When it comes to representing the government the buck stops with the president of Treasury Board. And if you want to assign a date to it, the political system has been that way since 1848. I'd be happy with Mr. Toews' coming along with his officials. In any event, ministers rarely come alone—I'm not saying that doesn't happen—but they come with support staff from their department, and that's not a problem. I really want Mr. Toews to appear. He's the minister, the elected representative, and the onus will be on him to explain to us why the government is redoing in the 40^th Parliament what it undid in the 39^th Parliament. The minister was in that position at the end of the previous Parliament and he's still there today—and he's the one who has to appear. His officials can be there to support him, but he needs to be the voice of the government. And that's why I am supporting Ms. Zarac's proposal. And it's also why I'm opposed to the amendment that was just brought forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

I would like to clarify something with Ms. Glover. In your amendment...

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Can I request the vote be held immediately?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

No, because I still have two speakers on the list.

Ms. Glover, according to your motion, you would like to begin by inviting Treasury Board officials, then potentially follow up with the president of Treasury Board.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

Your motion is broad. When you hear from several witnesses, you don't have time to ask as many questions. We could invite the officials to the first meeting, to get some background, and discuss another motion to invite the president.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Glover. Your amendment is clear and I think the members of the committee understand it.

Mr. Petit, do you still want to be recognized?

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

Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.

We discussed the transfer at length at the last meeting. I believe Mr. Rodriguez focused specifically on the matter and said that anything that had to do with official languages was presented to the Prime Minister's cabinet and that is how things work best. Since then, there have been changes. Now, we deal with the president of Treasury Board. However, the last time Mr. Fraser appeared before the committee, we asked him the question. And I think that he referred to what used to happen and to what happens now.

In my opinion, there is a problem with the flow chart. The motion reads as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Official Languages invite the President of the Treasury Board to appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages to elaborate on its new functions in regard to the Official Languages Act [...].

If there are new duties, there need to be documents, books, flow chart or transfer statements laying out when, how and by whom that was done. Does it affect all departments? I am all for inviting Mr. Toews, but in order to be able to ask relevant questions... The federal government is a huge enterprise, and official languages permeates every department. With that in mind, I want the officials to tell us what authority has been handed over. Have they relinquished all or part of their authority? Are there some areas for which they have not done so?

Let me give you an example to explain this. Mr. Fraser clearly said that he did not understand why the position of deputy minister did not have a mandatory bilingual designation. He said that the last two or three times. I want to know who is excluded from these new powers. Before going any further, I would like to get my hands on all documentation. Given that we are dealing with new duties, I have to make sure that all my colleagues get this documentation so that when Mr. Toews appears before our committee, we will know exactly where the problem lies. Is there a problem and do we want to fix it? Maybe there is not and we're trying to create one; I don't know.

That is why our parliamentary secretary's amendment makes sense. We should have an opportunity to speak with a long-standing senior official so what we know exactly what the lay of land was before and after. You know as well as I do that politicians come and go, but that the public servants remain. Everyone knows that.

These functions have not been handed over to one single individual, but to the entire machinery of government, which is very powerful, in this particular case. I want to know exactly what functions have been vested in the senior officials and if they are different from those they used to have. And in order to do this, I need documentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

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

No, Mr. Chair, you cut me off. I know that we have just welcomed a new member from the NDP, but I wanted to say something.

I'd like us to support this motion, but amend it in such a way that we begin with the officials and get copies of any and all documentation relating to the transfer. And then, we'll have the president of Treasury Board appear before us.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

Mr. D'Amours, you'd like to comment on the subamendment?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be quick, because I know it's time to move on to the vote.

Once we've voted, perhaps Mr. Petit can inform us of his vision, his organizational chart, as to how to ask the minister questions when he appears. That would be really interesting. In that way, we'd know more. Mr. Petit seems to want to get a lot of information from the minister. And I think he could share that information with us. And in doing so, we can make sure we're given all the details we need, from A to Z. Our time with the minister should be really interesting.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Ms. Thi Lac.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Petit, your remarks contradict what Ms. Glover said. They didn't complement what she said, they went against what she said. Ms. Glover said she didn't even want the minister to appear, whereas you've indicated you want him to appear after the other witnesses. What you're arguing for isn't really clear. We should vote on Ms. Zarac's original motion.