Evidence of meeting #22 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was work.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chair, I feel that a mistake has been made. We should give the document back to the clerk and have it circulated again when it has been translated. I think it is important that both documents be translated. As you said, the motion has previously been presented orally.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Yes. The motion should not have been distributed in English only, and for that I apologize, but the motion and amendment are in form because they were given to us orally and because we have simultaneous translation here. The amendment is in order, it is in front of us, and it is live.
Go ahead, Monsieur Trottier.
Conservative
Bernard Trottier Conservative Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion to sit in camera.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
I'm not going to allow that, because you cannot move a motion on a point of order. In other words, the floor is Madame Michaud's. Her time can be interrupted if there is a legitimate point of order, and there is, and I thank Monsieur Gourde for bringing it to the chair's attention.
Go ahead, Madame Michaud.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We may have gone a little off track. Let's recall my argument so far. I was saying that the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality is a rather major initiative. The work that members of the committee are doing to evaluate it is as important for us as parliamentarians as it is for the communities we represent.
We are coming up to the mid-term evaluation. We should be receiving the documents in March, if I am not mistaken. We do not have a lot of time in which to meet with the witnesses we have to hear from. To date, we have seen no representative from the department, no minister, no deputy minister. The Commissioner of Official Languages has not yet had the chance to come before us to express his views on the current Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality.
At the moment, we have to spend all our time debating the amended motion, because the substance of the motion itself remains unacceptable. As members of the opposition, we absolutely cannot agree to working with our hands tied, with no ability to speak to anyone about the work the committee is doing, whether to Canadians or to the media.
We are being forced to use the speaking time made available to us under the House Standing Orders on committee proceedings to try to convince you of the importance of working in public, and to leave you room to withdraw the original motion. Nor would we need to discuss the amendment made by my colleague Mr. Harris if the original motion were withdrawn. We have to take this committee time. We are being prevented from continuing our study on the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality and from doing various other tasks because we have to defend the privilege we have as parliamentarians, the privilege of representing Canadians to the best of our ability and then providing them with information. I find it unfortunate that we have to use a number of committee meetings in this way.
On several occasions, we have been unable to explain the committee's work. Today, we have the opportunity to explain that work to Canadians. I did not believe that we would have that opportunity so soon but, now we do, we must seize it. I believe that this is the best opportunity we have to openly discuss the situation we are experiencing in the committee. We have to realize how important public sessions are. In this committee, we deal, as I mentioned, with issues that directly affect official language minority communities.
Before leaving the session, Mr. Bélanger spoke about CBC/Radio-Canada and about the importance of this institution for official language minority communities. This is an issue that we cannot allow to be discussed behind closed doors. The communities themselves have raised their concerns publicly. They have a perfectly legitimate right to see and to hear our discussions in order to be informed about our intentions as parliamentarians and about those of the members of the government party. That is also part of our responsibility as members of this committee.
A little earlier, we began reading the Official Languages Act. I invite you to read page 35 of the document you received little earlier, particularly section 88 of the Act, which deals specifically with the makeup of our committee. As I do not see anyone reading the document, let me quote section 88.
88. The administration of this Act, any regulations and directives made under this Act and the reports of the Commissioner, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Canadian Heritage made under this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or both Houses of Parliament as may be designated or established for that purpose.
This very specific section of the Official Languages Act entrusts us directly with the mandate of ensuring that the Act is complied with in various bills, as well as in the operations of various institutions and in our committee.
A short while ago, quite a major objection was raised because some documents were not provided in both official languages. That is very relevant. It is one of our obligations in that we must keep Canadians, specifically francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec, informed about the work the committee is doing and the plans it has. It is one of the obligations that comes to us directly from section 88 of the Act, the section that deals with the creation of our committee.
So our responsibilities are very broad and extremely important. When it comes to all the work of the committee, we cannot allow any restriction here of the privilege of those parliamentarians whose mandate is to defend francophones outside Quebec and anglophones in Quebec. We must give ourselves some latitude and we must show some respect to the Canadians who also have demands and expectations.
In our work, we must constantly keep those expectations in mind. Canadians expect to see the work that their representatives in Parliament are doing and to receive the information they need from us, information that is complete and faithful and that allows them to judge our actions and the various measures we are going to put in place.
It is inconceivable to me, and to the people I represent, that Canadians not be informed of what goes on here. We cannot allow opposition views to be completely forgotten, to have our opinions disregarded and, in a word, to be constantly hiding behind closed doors when it suits the government party. The opposition must be heard. We all believe in our colleagues' good faith.
Mr. Harris' amendments here states that, if there is no vote at the start of the meeting, opposition members' opinions must absolutely be heard. This is an extremely significant amendment. It makes the concept of in camera precise. If we have to move in that direction, we must also make sure that we have a role to play in the decision to move in camera.
We are in a parliamentary system. As opposition members, our role is in a way to provide checks and balances, to take a second look at matters and to provide an opposing view. But our role is also to make proposals. Going behind closed doors without our opinion being asked, and simply disregarding our view that we consider it essential to discuss certain issues in public, is a long way from the parliamentary system of which we are currently a part. There must be some balance. The amendment before us offers a solution that would make sure that we can operate with that balance.
Discussions with colleagues tell us that committees are now making their work public to an ever-increasing extent. We have heard on a number of occasions that in-camera work is needed for greater efficiency and the committees have always worked that way. But if we look at what goes on in Parliament, and what has gone on throughout the history of the Canadian Parliament, we see that that is not the case and that it has not previously worked that way. It can also not work that way perfectly well now.
More and more, committees are deciding to hold their discussions openly and to make them accessible to all. I do not see why our committee should operate differently.
If we look at the way in which committees operate as it was explained to me, I think we are capable of doing honourable work that can accommodate slightly dissenting opinions that we may express among ourselves. With each one of us contributing our different ideas, we may reach a compromise or two. We may reach a result that is much more representative of what Canadians want.
Members of the government party often talk about the strong mandate, the clear mandate, with which Canadians have entrusted them. I will not deny that, in some quarters, that can elicit applause. But we must remember that a large number of Canadians voted for other parties that do not share the governing party's ideals. Those people also deserve to be considered in the discussions we have here, and their positions also deserve to be presented and heard by all Canadians.
If Mr. Harris' amendment is rejected, if we have to vote on other motions and if the motions impose in-camera sessions without any possibility of preventing that on our part, we are, at the same time, muzzling the voices coming from all groups, all the different parts of the country, that may not support the government party and the various initiatives that it may want to undertake in the future.
I feel that some of the things we are discussing here, some of the government party's positions, are basically good and could be made better by possibly adding contributions from the opposition. Some ideas come from the Canadians that we represent and the groups we meet all over the country. Those ideas also deserve to be considered, and considered in public.
If we look at the demographic composition of our committee and at how things generally work in camera, we can see that the only things that could be said publicly will be those things that the committee has voted on. The government party has a majority. That is how our system works. Unless members decide to make a concession or two, all the decisions that are communicated in public will come solely from the government party. A significant part of public opinion will simply not be represented in our positions and our discussions.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I don't think it's that high. In any event, a large number of Canadians who got out and voted, that's 61% of those who did, will not have their positions represented if there is no way to include opposition views or to present opposing views.
Excuse me, let me get the figures right. I meant to say 60.1%, not 61%. In any event, it is higher than 50%, and therefore the majority of Canadians. It will be hard for them to feel represented. In my opinion, we have to make sure…
Conservative
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
The exact figure is 38% of the 61% of people who voted. That gives 22%, which is really low.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay, but that was not a point of order.
So back to you, Ms. Michaud.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you for letting me continue. It looks like we are getting into a little mathematical minefield.
So let me go back to the subject I first brought up, the need to value the opinion of all Canadians, regardless of whom they voted for. We must make sure that approach prevails in any public forum.
As I said earlier, we must be given the benefit of the doubt. We will not abuse our right to decline to hold sessions in camera if Mr. Harris' amendment is passed. As we said, as members of the opposition, we are aware that it is absolutely necessary to sit in camera at times, and we will be very happy to cooperate when the situation demands. But it is also important to make sure that there is no corresponding abuse, that the discourse can be free and open and it is reflected in public opinion, among Canadians.
As I see it personally, Canadians can communicate their message to me in the following way. They become aware of what goes on in the House, of the work we do and the topics we consider. Very often, they have concerns, they get worried. Others are satisfied with what goes on here. So that we can reflect what Canadians are thinking, we must make sure that they have access to information that allows them to make informed decisions and frame their thoughts in order to move things forward. We must make sure that our committee reflects our desire as parliamentarians for Canadians to participate and to be certain that their opinions are effectively and clearly represented.
As to the changes that could be made to ways of operating that have been in effect for so long, I feel that we are on a slippery slope. We have to be extremely careful about the rules we give ourselves. Respect for parliamentary privilege is one thing. I do not think that we have got to the point of doing away with this privilege completely, but we have to be careful. When we talk about restricting the time for discussion, or simply restricting what can be said publicly, I think that we are very close to the limit. At that point, things are hard to change. I would not like to see that becoming a tradition in this Parliament.
When I speak to my constituents about what is happening and about the situation that we have to work in here at this committee, a number of them are very concerned. A large number of people from francophone communities who have come to talk to us have been concerned about what is going on at the committee. They are concerned about the lack of information with which they are sometimes faced, and about the general situation of French in Canada. It is not just in Quebec that disturbances have occurred when decisions relegate French to second-rate status. We hear similar reactions all across the country.
People are concerned about how little room some institutions make for French. In this committee, questions have frequently been raised by witnesses, or by members of the opposition in our remarks. I mentioned Radio-Canada funding a little earlier, but there are plenty of other examples. We heard serious dissatisfaction and concern about the appointment of a unilingual judge to the Supreme Court and about the appointment of a unilingual Auditor General. People see things like that happening and wonder about the choices that members of the government party are making, as well as the degree of compliance with the Official Languages Act. As was mentioned earlier, one of the obligations of federal institutions and of parliamentarians is to encourage the development of both official languages and to promote their use everywhere.
The various groups are raising questions about the various subjects I just mentioned. Some of them simply want to know whether we are going to focus more on the concrete and technical aspects relating to Roadmap investments. Others want to know how the funds are going to be allocated by the provinces when federal transfers take place under the constitutional obligations of the Official Languages Act. All of that will directly affect francophones outside Quebec. They want to hear about it and have access to that information. They also want explanations and answers. It's sometimes difficult to get access to all the information that people ask us for. But I think that our discussions in committee contribute greatly to this dissemination of information and this exchange with Canadians.
Furthermore, along the same lines, the study of bills that we must do in committee will also directly affect Canadians. They want to know exactly what the amendments presented are, how they are presented, what considerations are going to support the steps the committee is going to take, what changes it will make or, conversely, the reasons why certain amendments won't be approved when they might be very important or, in other cases, a little less so.
So people will not be able to determine it on their own. They need to consult the committee's work. This comes under our responsibilities. Simply stated, studying bills can only benefit from the support of members of the public, in response to their thoughts after they have had access to the committee's work, to the information that we give them and to the problems we raise. I think it becomes very difficult to have this privileged dialogue with Canadians when everything absolutely must be done in secret. I don't think that is how this committee should operate. We need to favour the approach where members of the opposition can also weigh in on the soundness of holding meetings in camera.
Every one of us has responsibilities that must be taken very seriously. One of those responsibilities, as has been mentioned more than once, is to effectively and, in my opinion, publicly defend the issues closely affecting official language minority communities. These people have entrusted us with a very important mandate. The legislation gives them rights, and we have obligations toward them. We must take our responsibilities very much to heart and ensure that the various steps that we are going to take in committee are truly going to contribute to the development and growth of those communities. I come back to—
NDP
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
I'm sorry, but I'd like to raise a point of information.
Since Mr. Gourde just mentioned that the amendment was drafted in one language only, I'd simply like to take a few moments to write it in French as well. We should have it in both languages. I would simply like to reiterate that the amendment sets out that it would be with the consent of at least one member of the opposition or by a committee vote at the start of a meeting where committee work is to be discussed.
I'd like to make sure that everyone has the document in both official languages.
Conservative
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you very much.
Mr. Harris, thank you for that clarification and for that very clear sign of respect for the spirit of the Official Languages Act.
I was discussing our responsibilities as parliamentarians. As I said, we must make sure that we carry out our role as openly as possible. The problems that this situation poses can in part be resolved by Mr. Harris' amendment.
If I have the time, we need to look at that again. The fact that we vote at the start of the meeting makes it possible to avoid delays. But given the current demographic make-up, there may still be some problems.
However, the true meaning is very important. Actually, we are including at least one member of the opposition in the decision-making process. It's that absence that we deplore the most within this committee. The fact is that the various steps we are trying to take and the various things we are trying to propose as official opposition, together with Mr. Bélanger who is very often here, frequently take a back seat. It becomes very difficult to discuss it.
If we want to be able to come forward with a certain opinion or a certain issue, we must make sure to have witnesses and to be able to talk with them. If we can't do that type of thing, we end up in camera. It's even more the case if we adopt a motion that forces us to go in camera as soon as we need to focus on committee work.
I realize that I wasn't very polite. I didn't welcome our Liberal colleague Mr. Pacetti, who is replacing Mr. Bélanger. You're arriving here on the Standing Committee on Official Languages at a very interesting point. This is a discussion that has very serious repercussions.
The meeting is currently taking place publicly. Unless things change, you will be able to keep up to date on the various decisions that we'll make. I hope that we will be able to continue openly with the discussion we're having. I think we're all feeling much more comfortable. We are according much more respect to the spirit of Canadian parliamentarism and our role as opposition. I hope that we will be able to continue this way and accomplish our work.
The official language minority communities have great expectations of us. The various witnesses that have come to see us in the past few months have very clearly expressed the importance of the work that we are doing here, of the direct influence that we can have on their community through our recommendations, the studies we undertake and the reports we produce. All of these actions and measures that we can adopt can really help them to realize their full potential.
In the study that was done on the north, among others, we were told repeatedly to what extent these people had been pleased with the visit by parliamentarians and truly hoped to see direct positive results from that visit. The committee would certainly be able to continue that study and really be able to produce a report.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
There isn't a question of information, but you have the floor anyway, Mr. Gourde.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I simply want to know how much the trip to Canada's High Arctic cost taxpayers. Perhaps the clerk has that information.
Conservative
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you.
Aside from that issue, another study has been done and the committee hasn't looked into. We haven't made any recommendations. We haven't presented it to the government. It's the study on integrating newcomers in the various minority language communities. It's an extremely important study. There are a lot of new workers in various regions, particularly in western Canada. They are often part of minority language communities, and that has major repercussions on those communities.
It's very important that the committee be able to continue its work, that we make recommendations and that we also hear the government's position. If discussions on a particular topic take place in camera, we will never be able to meet the needs that the communities have expressed. A number of people who came here wanted to hear much more on this study. They were very curious to know the results. They wanted to see what type of actions could be taken or what measures could be put in place to truly promote the implementation of the committee's recommendations.
Actually, since our meeting is over, I'll come back to it next time.
Conservative