Thank you very much.
Good morning everyone.
I want to quickly remind you of what the motion we will be debating today is about. As you heard at the public meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages last week, we will debate the motion moved by the Conservative member representing Richmond Hill, who is asking that all committee business be conducted in camera.
We, the NDP members, feel that such a motion seriously infringes on the democratic rights of parliamentarians and Canadians. Therefore, we ask that the Conservative government withdraw the motion immediately. Of course, the person who moved the motion is not here today. However, I don't think that should prevent our government colleagues from coming to that conclusion.
This morning, our debate will more specifically focus on my colleague Dan Harris' amendment, to the effect that we should never go in camera without the consent of at least one member of the opposition. This amendment is very important for us. We think that it should be supported by all the members of this committee. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure the transparency of the work done by this committee. Even though the majority of the 39% of Canadians who decided to vote on May 2 elected a majority Conservative government—as we are reminded time and time again—that does not mean that Canadians have given the government carte blanche. We live in a democracy, and Canadians expect government accountability and public debates on issues that matter to them.
There are some specific rules that govern the system we use, the British parliamentary system. It can be very easy for a majority government to overuse traditional or simply written rules to try to muzzle the opposition and, sometimes, to hide information that is of the utmost importance to Canadians. We feel that we must equip ourselves with mechanisms that would guarantee that our committee will keep operating in a democratic and open manner. That is the objective of my colleague Mr. Harris' amendment.
We feel that in camera proceedings with the potential to hide all our work from Canadians would be disastrous for the country's linguistic communities. Those communities expect the committee to produce concrete and visible results that will have a positive impact on their development and vitality. We are talking about taxpayers' money, money that comes from the communities we must represent. It is important that the work we do for those people be visible and very tangible.
Since September, the government has had full control of the committee's agenda and has totally refused to discuss issues raised by members of the opposition. We raise various issues that very often come from official language minority communities that contact our offices to discuss matters that affect them, and their concerns over certain actions and decisions. They ask us to talk about those issues here, in committee. However, in camera meetings are clearly being overused, and we cannot have those discussions amongst us, even though that is our role. As parliamentarians, we must take the time to discuss things amongst ourselves and try to reach consensuses that will enhance the common good of the linguistic communities we are trying to represent.
As of now, the fact of the matter is that only meetings where we hear from witnesses are public. That is the only time left to us to raise issues we would like to discuss amongst ourselves urgently.
It has been tremendously difficult for us to get our messages across since we have been here. Like my colleague Mr. Harris, I think it is very important to stop meetings from being held in camera without the consent of at least one member of the opposition. In camera meetings do not allow Canadians to see that the government is failing to do its job in terms of official languages.
In addition, the government has still not responded to the recommendations made in the annual report produced by the Commissioner of Official Languages. That's despite the fact that the recommendations are not very complicated and would improve the situation of official language minority communities. We are currently still studying the roadmap, and that's taking forever. The mid-term report will be submitted in a few weeks, but we still have witnesses to hear from and we have still not had the opportunity to look into the issues raised by past witnesses.
The roadmap is important, but allow me first to digress briefly. New colleagues joined our committee just recently. So I think it would be important to get them up to speed on the issues that will be addressed here, so that they have the information they need to follow our discussions.
I would like to quickly remind you of what exactly the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality 2008-2013 is. The roadmap succeeded the 2003-2008 Action Plan for Official Languages, which had been implemented by the government. That initiative was implemented to confirm the government's support of Canada's linguistic duality. This major strategy, which we feel is rather important, outlines the government's major policy directions in terms of official languages. The roadmap for Canada's linguistic duality is the newest addition to existing measures, under such pieces of legislation as the Official Languages Act.
The roadmap encompasses various programs and initiatives that fall under the five main areas of focus: emphasizing the value of linguistic duality among all Canadians; building the future by investing in youth; improving access to services for official language minority communities; capitalizing on economic benefits; and ensuring efficient governance to better serve Canadians. You can see that, overall, the goal is to help official language minority communities develop.
That's all we have been doing since September. We have heard from witnesses who told us how the roadmap has benefited them. We must recognize the fact that this program has enhanced community development and that a number of projects have been completed. However, the witnesses did express some concerns and talked about needs that deserve to be debated in this committee. Yet we have still not really looked into those issues. I think that we should do so as soon as possible, as the mid-term report is due soon and these kinds of issues are likely to be raised. In addition, the roadmap will end in 2013.
Most, if not all, official language minority communities have called for the roadmap to be renewed, albeit with some improvements. One particular issue was raised on a number of occasions and by many community organizations. They said they were concerned by the fact that the government's priorities in the roadmap were not always in line with the communities' priorities.
Several groups have testified before the committee and submitted strategic action plans developed by their communities. However, a number of those plans were not taken into account at the various roadmap development stages. However, that would have been an important thing to do, since the programs implemented under the roadmap are intended to directly help those communities. Therefore, we feel it is very important for those needs to be included in the strategic considerations involved in developing future roadmaps.
The same goes for the targets that were supposed to be met through roadmap actions and tracking indicators, which show the progress and the tangible impact of the roadmap for official language minority communities.
Another element mentioned by many community groups was the lack of transparency and accountability in roadmap-related programs. We asked the witnesses many questions about that, since the issue is extremely worrisome. The government has supposedly invested $1.1 billion in the francophonie. However, when community organizations are directly asked to talk about the source of the money they receive, many of them are completely unable to say exactly where it comes from. Does it come from the roadmap or the official languages support program? It's very hard to say.
In order to ensure sound taxation and public funds management, it is important to know exactly where the money under this government strategy is being invested and to see the tangible impact those investments have on the communities. That should be a priority in developing the actions and strategies included in the next roadmap, which will begin in 2013.
Maybe a better job needs to be done of explaining the roadmap to organizations. For instance, various operating methods and goals could be discussed with them. That could help improve people's understanding of those issues and lead to the better use of the money the government invests in promoting bilingualism and developing our official language minority communities.
In addition, a number of organizations have said they were worried by the fact that much of the money from the roadmap is used by the organizations to pay for programs that will be ongoing. According to different witnesses who have appeared before us, the roadmap funds allocated to the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer are used to pay the employees' wages. The office, which has taken over the mandate of the former Canada Public Service Agency, carries out the required duties. We should also look into these kinds of issues and ensure that the funding is predictable and permanent for groups representing official language minority communities.
Another matter that was brought up was the need for more consultations in the beginning, during the development stage, in an attempt to target the priorities mentioned by different groups. Those groups should also be consulted during the various steps of the roadmap implementation process, so as to ensure that all the money is spent within the communities and that the actions taken and strategies put forward will really meet community needs.
A number of other issues were raised by various groups that appeared before the committee, but I think that some of my colleagues will be able to talk at more length about that over the next few meetings. I think that accountability will be one of the elements discussed further. I think that is one of the sources of the problems noted in the current Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality.
In their various appearances before the committee, witnesses have also told us about certain concerns over issues that are not directly related to the study of the Roadmap for Canada's Linguistic Duality. They directly asked members of the committee to look into some of the government's decisions and actions that seemed to have a negative impact on official language minority communities, which are very often francophone communities. We feel that the requests made by those groups warrant our immediate action.
Over the past few months, the members of the opposition have tried to highlight certain issues and have them officially placed on this committee's agenda. Unfortunately, our Conservative colleagues are preventing us from discussing issues that matter to us, as they often hurry to move motions to hold in camera debates on the issues we highlight.
Today's meeting is public. I want those listening to us to really understand why the consent of at least one member of the opposition should be a requirement for in camera proceedings. Therefore, I will read a few of the motions that the New Democratic Party has put forward before the committee since the beginning of this parliamentary session. There have been many of them. I think that it is very important for Canadians to know about the kinds of issues that worry us and merit public discussion.
The first motion calls for the committee to undertake a study on the Conservative government's strategic and operational review set out in “The Next Phase of Canada's Economic Action Plan—A Low-Tax Plan for Jobs and Growth” by December 15, 2011.
I have to ask my colleagues to help me out if ever I speak too quickly for the interpreters, as I tend to talk fast. I am trying to keep myself in check, but let me know if I go too fast, and I would be happy to slow down.
The second motion calls for the committee to ask the Treasury Board Sub-Committee on the Strategic and Operating Review to provide, before March 1, 2012, a report on the state of the integration of official languages into the strategic and operating review, and a final assessment on official languages at the end of the review.
We also suggested that the committee invite all the members of the Treasury Board Sub-Committee on the Strategic and Operating Review provided for in “The Next Phase of Canada’s Economic Plan—A Low-Tax Plan for Jobs and Growth” to appear as soon as possible for two hours, by November 22, 2011, to report on official languages in their proceedings.
You can see that some things could unfortunately not be done. Nevertheless, they could be done very quickly over the next few meetings if we can agree on in camera rules and if, ideally, we ensure the opposition's significant participation in decisions to proceed in camera.