Official Languages Committee on March 6th, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

We will now suspend for a few minutes to allow the witnesses to leave the room.

Then we'll continue with our budget.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We're coming out of suspension. We are in public, so I hope I didn't give the wrong impression that people had to leave the room.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

Do you want to introduce your motion?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

This is a request for supplementary budget. My motion is in both official languages. It reads as follows:

That in relation to the study of the evaluation of the Roadmap: improving programs and service delivery, the proposed budget in the amount of $ 63,900 be adopted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you very much.

This budget is in addition to the $36,900 that has already been approved and spent for witnesses who have already appeared in front of our committee. This supplementary budget of $63,900 would allow us to call another 34 witnesses.

Are there any questions?

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

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

It's more a suggestion or comment.

In view of the fact that all our rooms are well equipped now and that we have invested in teleconferencing facilities, perhaps we can use the technology for certain witnesses. Some witnesses could cost a lot of money.

We could at least study the possibility of doing so. If we could save money, that would be good.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

That's possible.

Mr. Bélanger, go ahead, please.

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

Mr. Chair, I am opposed to this. I think instead we should ask the Department of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages to give us the funds.

The bills should be paid by Canadian Heritage since, without consulting us or even seeing whether we wanted to do their work, its officials decided, unbeknownst to us and without discussing the matter, that we would do their work to evaluate the roadmap. This is utterly unacceptable, and it lacks professionalism and transparency.

I don't see why they wouldn't pay this amount. Mr. Chair, I move that we ask Canadian Heritage to pay us this amount.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I understand the point you're trying to make, but I don't think that's possible.

Mr. Weston, puis monsieur Godin.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

I am somewhat confused. It seems to me that it is the taxpayers who will pay the expenses. If it is possible for witnesses to give their evidence by teleconference, we have to consider that and the possibility of saving money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

As chair, I'm more than willing to invite people by teleconference. I've done that on previous committees. Just so you know, it's about 50% of the cost nevertheless. If we were to invite all of the witnesses here to appear in front of us by teleconference, it's still $30,000 as opposed to $63,000. It is a cost saving, and we'll endeavour to do that, if possible.

Monsieur Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, I am opposed to that. With all due respect to Mr. Bélanger, my position is still the same. It is not our responsibility to conduct the study that the Department of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages was to conduct. I even filed a complaint with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Canadian Heritage must conduct consultations, as it is directed to do by the act. That is my position. It is not up to us to do it. A study does not replace consultations. Personally, I am not considering it; I do not support it.

Furthermore, I think it is really important that the people we invite be able to testify here. When they do not, it is because they are unavailable and we are unable to reach an arrangement. In that kind of case, we use the teleconferencing service. However, that service should not replace face-to-face meetings with witnesses, when we ask them questions, which leads to dialogue. We save perhaps $30,000 through teleconferencing, but there is no human aspect to the discussions.

I think we should continue doing what we are currently doing. We didn't choose to spend three or four months on a study. Now that these people will be testifying, I believe it is important that they have the same opportunity as the others.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Monsieur Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm in favour of the additional funds in the motion, for sure, but I'm also in favour of video conferencing, wherever possible. We use it on my other committee. It's very effective as well, so if we could save some money, why not?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Harris.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'm not going to add much to it. I would like to parrot my colleague, Monsieur Godin. Having somebody by video conference or by teleconference is absolutely not the same as having them in the room. You don't get the same impression.

Furthermore, my experience in committees with respect to the person on teleconference is that they tend to end up being the lesser witness, the lesser person, in terms of the attention the committee gives them. I think that does them a disservice.

I certainly think it's an important and valuable tool so we can have people who would otherwise be incapable of appearing before the committee, but having witnesses in person is critical.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Monsieur Aubin.

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

Actually, I just wanted to mention that I would be in favour of the videoconferencing idea in cases where it is impossible for witnesses to travel to Ottawa.

However, I've been taking part in these proceedings for several months now, and I have the feeling that I am learning as much from the interactions among the various witnesses who appear before us as from the evidence they give, if not more.

When we use the videoconference system, I am necessarily limited by the director's eye, which focuses on the spokesperson and prevents me from seeing the other reactions. Unless we have a number of cameras, I much prefer to meet with people in person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

My understanding of the direction of the committee is that to save money the chair will invite people to appear by teleconference if it's not possible for them to appear in person. Otherwise, the committee's preference is to have them appear in person. No?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay.

Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

No, I think we have a responsibility to the taxpayer. The fact that we have technology, which we're not used to perhaps, and that we don't ask as many questions as we should using the technology isn't a fault of the technology; it's our fault. So we need to use the technology that's here, to save the taxpayer some money. I think we have a responsibility to do that.

Otherwise, it seems we want the luxury of having them here when we need to use the technology before us. The conversation is going to be the same.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Just quickly.

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

Very quickly, at the same time we could stay home and look at CPAC and vote electronically and we wouldn't have to come to Ottawa any more. Maybe some of you would like that, or maybe Stephen Harper would like that, but not me. I think we have to have those discussions directly with people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We have a minute left.

The direction the chair is getting from the majority of members on the committee is that we will invite the witnesses by teleconference.

What is the wish of the members of the committee: to primarily invite witnesses by teleconference—

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.