Official Languages Committee on May 25th, 2010

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The Supreme Court of Canada has served Canadians well for more than 140 years without any need for this kind of legislation. This bill is nothing more than a game—a political game that is completely unnecessary, and that is what I said.

The Supreme Court of Canada must be bilingual and respect all Canadians who come before it. However, if someone is unable to perfectly understand technical arguments in both official languages, without translation, that should not mean that he has no business sitting on the Supreme Court of Canada. There have been a number of Supreme Court justices who have served Canada very well in the official language of their choice, albeit with some difficulty because they were not perfectly or completely bilingual. That is the point I want to make.

As I said to my federalist colleagues who are members of this Committee and believe that Canada is better off when we are united and respect Canada's two official languages, I find it interesting that, when Bill C-232 received the support of the House a month and a half ago, it was the Bloc Québécois that was happiest with that result; it is the Bloc Québécois asking the most questions in this Committee; and it is also the Bloc Québécois celebrating the victory of that bill's passage by the House. That is not a good sign for Canadian unity.

I repeat that the Supreme Court of Canada is an institution which has no need for this bill, because it has served Canada very well for more than 140 years, without such a bill. Furthermore, when the Liberal Party was in office, it did not seek to make such a change to the legislation. To be perfectly frank, we do not need this bill.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

You say the Supreme Court has served Canada well. I pretty much agree with you that it has served Canada well; on the other hand, it has not served Quebec very well. As a general rule, whenever there are disputes or disagreements between Quebec and the Canadian government, the Supreme Court, as our former Premier, Maurice Duplessis, used to say, is like the tower of Pisa: it always leans in the same direction.

Could that be attributable, at least in part, to the fact that a certain proportion of judges do not even understand French and have really never shown the necessary sensitivity to the Francophone population of Canada to hold such a high office? You really believe that there are two components to this system, one Francophone and one Anglophone. But should we not ensure that the most important and decisive institutions in the country can operate equally well in one or the other language, with respect to each--

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

The institution has to operate that way and the individuals should as well. That is certainly a goal, but it should not be the law. As I said to my colleagues around the table who voted in favour of that bill, we see the kind of games Bloc members are playing now. They are attacking the Supreme Court. That debate is not in Canada's best interests. That is the kind of thing that is triggered by this bill under the direction of Thomas Mulcair, who wants to win back his seat in Outremont. It is a cynical game, and I am really sorry to see the Liberal Party playing along.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Dorion.

We will now begin our fourth round, with Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Minister, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.

Minister, as part of the work of this Committee, we have had several meetings in recent months where we heard from the representatives of groups such as the FCFA and the QCGN. They talked to us about a number of exciting things happening in their communities. They demonstrated an exemplary passion regarding the Francophone communities. One of the topics that came up over and over again was consultation and dialogue between the communities and our government. In your opening statement, you mentioned the Dialogue Days that took place last week. Can you tell us what the government and your Department are doing to maintain an ongoing dialogue with these groups, and how often these meetings are expected to occur in future?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

I am going to ask Pablo to talk about the meetings held last week, but I would first like to clarify a couple of things.

When I was appointed Minister of Official Languages in June of 2008, the first thing I did was to embark on a cross-country tour of Canada to speak to the representatives of organizations on the ground. For example, a small Francophone organization in Nanaimo, British Columbia, has only two people. The Francophone community in Prince Edward Island that I visited when I was passing through Charlottetown includes grassroots organizations whose budgets are not in the millions of dollars, unlike other organizations. They have real needs and real concerns with respect to the future use of the official languages in Canada. I talk to people in these organizations very often.

I believe that less than 2% of the voters in my riding are Francophone. Existing organizations are therefore very small and there are very few of them. I am always in contact with their representatives. People at the FCFA and the QCGN can always get in touch with me. I have met with them in the past at meetings, and I certainly expect to speak to them again. In addition, official discussions took place here, in the National Capital, last week.

Pablo, could you tell us how those meetings went?

[Pablo Sobrino]

Yes. The Dialogue Days took place on May 18, 19 and 20. The first day, the 18th, was set aside for minority Francophone communities. The second day—the 19th—was set aside for communities where there is linguistic duality, and the third—the 20th—for minority Anglophones in Quebec. The agenda for these meetings was developed in cooperation with the organizations themselves. We wanted to be sure that the topics to be addressed reflected the issues they wanted to discuss. We met with more than 90 organizations. Representatives from almost all the departments were present for the three days. We discussed current programming under the Roadmap, the way those programs are implemented in the communities and potential changes. They also gave us their views on the approaches they feel are necessary to implement these programs.

They were good discussions. A report on this dialogue with the communities will be produced and shared with everyone. I might also add that a large number of permanent mechanisms are in place in all the departments to meet with the communities regarding immigration and health care, in particular. There are standing committees through which there can be consultations between government officials and the people our programs are aimed at.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

You said that 90 organizations were in attendance last week?

[Pablo Sobrino]

Yes, exactly. That was for the three separate groups.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I imagine that includes small and very large organizations?

[Pablo Sobrino]

There were some small organizations. There were actually fewer small organizations, because they really do not have an ability to travel; but the umbrella groups were there. The third day, there were about 30 organizations from Quebec, the North Shore, Montreal, Quebec City and a number of rural communities as well.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

And what conclusions were drawn from that three-day meeting and dialogue? Anything of interest?

[Pablo Sobrino]

We are moving in the right direction. There are gaps that must be filled. All of that will be discussed in the meeting performance report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Généreux.

We will move on now to Ms. Zarac.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will be brief, because I do not want to spend a lot of time on this. When do you expect the report to be released?

[Pablo Sobrino]

In the coming weeks, and it will be made public, since it is to be shared with all the organizations.

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

Would it be possible to forward to the Committee a list of the people who took part in this dialogue and to ensure that we receive the report as soon as it is released?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Could you just name some of the groups?

[Pablo Sobrino]

Yes. There was the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada, the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, the communities--

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

I do not want you to list them now. You can just forward the list to us. That would be great. Thank you.

[Pablo Sobrino]

Yes, certainly.

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

Mr. Moore, in your opening statement, you mentioned that 71% of the commitments have been announced. I do hope the funding is going to follow because, last year, we found out here in the Committee that the cash was not flowing quickly. So, I hope that will not be the case this year.

However, that is not the point I wanted to raise. The FCFA—and Mr. Généreux referred to their exemplary passion—is questioning the Department's transparency. You mentioned the departmental website for Canadian Heritage. But the FCFA says that it cannot trace the programs that are funded.

Is there a report showing exactly where the money is going year after year, department by department? If so, will that be posted on the website?

[James Moore, Conservative, Port Moody—Westwood—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Yes, there is such a list. It is posted on the website and is available to everyone. I know the QCGN--

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

In terms of what currently exists, the FCFA says that it is impossible to trace these things, and that absolutely nothing can be found. Is there a budget breakdown where we can find these programs?