Official Languages Committee on Feb. 14th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We're coming out of suspension.

We are resuming the debate on Mr. Harris' amendment.

Mr. Aubin, the floor is yours.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Before we continue, I would like to check something. It seems I have unanimous consent to move the following motion:That the debate on the motion and the amendment be adjourned and that the Committee resume the planning of the study on the evaluation of the Roadmap: improving programs and service delivery.

If I have unanimous consent, I so move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Is there unanimous consent to support this motion?

(Motion agreed to)

We will continue with the agenda. We have to discuss the future of the roadmap.

Before the break, we heard from 30 witnesses, but there are 117 on the list in total.

We have approximately 28 meetings before the summer break, which means 14 weeks. We have less than $5,000 left in the budget for this study. As chair, I may have to go before the Liaison Committee to ask for more money to continue this study.

As chair, I need direction from the committee on two issues. I need to know how many sittings you would like to keep and what types of witnesses you would like to hear from.

Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If we look at the number of witnesses we have heard from and at the number of meetings that we have had, I think we have to look at when we need to complete this study.

I suggest we tighten everything up and we prepare to hear from witnesses who would allow us to get this done. For example, we could hear from departmental representatives based on our needs. We have never gone over the list of witnesses together. I have personally looked at the list of witnesses, which was very long, and I have reduced it to 22 witnesses. We could even reduce it further.

But we should hear from people from departments, like ministers, who should come and tell us their points of view on the roadmap.

In terms of communities, we have met with all the key people. Of course, they are all key people, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

I think we should hear from certain people and finalize the report on the roadmap.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

Then we will hear from Mr. Trottier.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with my colleague Mr. Godin. I suggest that after next week's break, we focus on hearing from the remaining witnesses in the three or four weeks that follow.

I agree that those witnesses should come from the agencies and departments that are part of the roadmap. I am particularly interested in knowing where they are in their summative evaluation with the communities that they were supposed to have completed by the end of January or the end of February, if I'm not mistaken. This is an important step in the evaluation of the roadmap.

Since our next block of work occurs in March, we will have the results of those evaluations required by the roadmap. At that point, we have to get to work on a report. I do not necessarily want to impose this in a draconian way, but our analyst could perhaps begin the report and, when we get back from the other break, we could come back in camera to study the report as required.

I don't need to hear from representatives of the 16 or 17 agencies or departments, just the main ones. I had also asked for a document and I hope that it will be available soon. I wanted to get a report of the expenses made in the three first years of the roadmap. Three years are now complete, and the fourth finishes at the end of March. We could at least have the report of the actual expenses for the first three years of the roadmap. Perhaps that would let us determine more precisely which departments or agencies we want to hear representatives from.

So, if that's the way we are going, you will have my full cooperation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Trottier, the floor is yours. Next is Mr. Aubin.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that the suggestions made by Mr. Godin and Mr. Bélanger are reasonable. For our part, we have heard a good sample of the groups who have received funds through the roadmap. We could perhaps add some interviews with other witnesses so that we have a more complete picture of those who have received funds.

As to the departments and agencies that have participated in the roadmap, it is important to have a sample. As Mr. Bélanger said, it is not necessary that all departments be involved in the evaluation, but we should look at it along two axes. There is the vertical axis, that is to say the departments that have distributed the funds, and there is a horizontal axis—which more or less corresponds to the format of the roadmap—meaning the horizontal involvement within the departments. We have to hear witnesses give us their point of view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Aubin has the floor. Next is Mr. Gourde.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First I want to thank and congratulate everyone for getting back on cordial terms. It feels good. Thank you.

I agree with what has been said previously. To me, it seems important that our priority be to meet representatives from the departments so that we have the clarification we need to read and understand the upcoming mid-mandate report and make appropriate projections for the continuation of this roadmap.

Only agencies and departments can give us the additional information that we are presently lacking. Of course, if we had unlimited money and unlimited time, we would be able to hear from other organizations, but I still think that we have done a relatively good job of looking after the interests of each of the minority communities in the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Your turn, Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Given that it is Valentine's Day, I am also happy that we have reached an agreement so amicably.

I am in favour of hearing from representatives from the departments, and I think that it would be right and proper to do so. But I would like to make sure that some groups who have not come to meet with us feel free to do so after the statements from the departments. We would not want them to feel left aside given that they have indicated a desire to come and provide us with testimony.

I know that the list of witnesses is quite long, but perhaps they will not all indicate a desire to testify. After hearing the testimony from departmental representatives, perhaps some will have had their questions answered. But others might have things to present to us. I will leave it to your discretion to judge who can come and who cannot.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

Your turn, Mr. Godin.

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

I agree with Mr. Gourde. But I understand that the list was prepared by each political party. If we ask 100 people if they want to come, they will all say yes. I don't think that's what we want. Of course I am in favour of hearing from those who really want to come.

I have an idea. Perhaps we should adjourn the sitting and everyone should go and take a good look at the list. On Thursday morning, we will have another meeting and we will see what progress we have made. We will see how much we can reduce it. We must not have too many of them if we want to produce the report. We must remember that this committee has been working on this since September. We have to get the job done. If we go by the list of 100 witnesses, we are going to be hearing from them until June. That makes no sense. I've never seen a study last so long.

Anyway, I do not know if Mr. Bélanger shares my opinion. We can wait and see what he has to say, but I think we are going to have to focus on certain names. Perhaps Thursday would be a good day for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I think Mr. Godin’s idea is a good one. It is a little late to invite witnesses for Thursday; that's in two days. If we meet on Thursday, we can ask the clerk to prepare a schedule for the three weeks after the break. We can then talk about the kinds of witnesses that we want to invite.

Go ahead, Mr. Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of things.

In response to Monsieur Gourde's suggestion and Mr. Godin's comments, I would suggest that we consider notifying two groups, QCGN, which represents the anglophone minority, and the FCFA, which represents the francophone minority, that we might call them back after we've heard from the agencies and departments. QCGN, incidentally, has asked to come back. I don't know if you've seen that letter, Mr. Chairman.

This way we don't need to go to the 100 or so other witnesses, because these are the two umbrella groups that represent our linguistic minorities across the country. I think we could ask them to do that work after they've heard the agencies and departments that are coming before us.

Furthermore, we are in the nation's capital. Some departments might be prepared to come Thursday. I would hope that we would check this out so that we don't spend the entire day Thursday just deciding what we're going to do for the following three weeks. If it's not possible, fine. Remember, though, that we presumably have departments and agencies coming in from this region, which means we won't have to go back to the liaison committee to get more funds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I'm going to pass the floor to Monsieur Gourde and then to Mr. Harris. I need to get some direction here. I'm getting two different ideas of where we should go.

Mr. Gourde, do you prefer Mr. Godin’s suggestion for Thursday, or Mr. Bélanger’s? I can invite the witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage and the other departments, or I can decide that the Thursday meeting will be in order to discuss a schedule.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am sure that you are going to do everything you can in order to have witnesses on Thursday, but no one expects the impossible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

What I'll do then is ask the clerk to make his best effort to invite witnesses for Thursday. What I will also do at Thursday's meeting is distribute a schedule of proposed witnesses and time slots for the next four or five weeks, so that by the end of March we can conclude this study and have a discussion of the draft report. At Thursday's meeting, if you have input on the schedule and you'd like to see something slightly different, just come to me after the meeting and tell me what you'd like to see. We'll try to incorporate those suggestions and changes.

Monsieur Godin.

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

I have no objection to hearing from witnesses on Thursday, if it is possible.

In the meantime, however, we should all look at our list so that we are able to submit names. If the witnesses do not come, we can use Thursday’s entire meeting. If they do, and if they finish early enough for us to have time left, we could get back to work and look at the list. We could also talk to each other about what we want, what you want, and maybe reduce the list as much as we can.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

You can talk to me about it.

If there's no further business of the committee, thank you for the direction.

This meeting is adjourned.