Official Languages Committee on Nov. 4th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to the second session of the 41^st Parliament. On this Monday, November 4, 2013, the Standing Committee on Official Languages is holding its second hearing. We are here to discuss committee business.

Before dealing with our routine motions, I would first like to welcome our clerk, Mr. Chad Mariage. Mr. Mariage is replacing Ms. Suzie Cadieux who is on leave for personal reasons. I hope she will be able to return soon.

I also wish to congratulate Mr. Williamson on his marriage this summer.

Congratulations, John. It is fantastic news. I'm sure everyone here is very excited about the new path you're on.

Monsieur Dionne Labelle.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Allow me to make one comment: love is blind, but marriage restores one's sight.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We have a number of new members. I'd like to welcome all of you to this committee.

We finished last spring in the middle of the study on French immersion. Today if we can finish them both, we're going to do two items of business. First, we'll consider the adoption of routine motions. If there is time remaining, I'd like some direction from the committee as to whether they would like to start with a brand new study or continue with the study we were conducting on French immersion.

We'll move on to the first item of business in the orders of the day, and that is the consideration of routine motions.

Monsieur Godin.

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

I move the following motion:

That the committee retain, as needed and at the discretion of the chair, the services of one or more analysts from the Library of Parliament to assist it in its work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

A routine motion has been moved.

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Is there any debate on the motion?

Seeing no debate, I'll call the vote.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I welcome our analyst, who may now join us.

Are there any other motions?

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move another motion. I think it is important to move it now:

That the Committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing: (a) wages, salaries and other employee benefits; (b) contracts and contract negotiations; (c) labour relations and personnel matters; (d) draft reports; (e) briefings concerning national security; and That all votes taken in camera be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

So we have before us a motion concerning in camera meetings.

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

I'm going to give you a copy in both official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Are there any questions on the text of the motion?

Is there debate on the motion?

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

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

I am opposed to this motion because it would interfere with the independence of our committee in future. Consequently, I think that this motion is out of order.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

I think that the motion is in order, and that we need to vote on it.

Mr. Chair, this motion is important because we are accountable to Canadians. They have to know what we are talking about and we are doing. We should be holding a transparent debate.

Our committee has sat in camera repeatedly. People do not like that and do not accept it, according to comments we have received. What do we have to hide from Canadians? We talk about our work and the witnesses who come here. We have already established rules concerning in camera meetings. For instance, we sit in camera to prepare our reports and drafts. We have to have certain rules. We can't at the drop of a hat go behind closed doors when certain things do not suit the government.

The motion proposes clear rules. We have a responsibility to the Canadians who chose us. They have a right to hear what their members have to say and to weigh in on those discussions. Ultimately it is up to them to decide what will be taken away from members.

As I said, the motion sets out certain rules. Certain meetings would be held in camera, but this would be done according to some clear rules, and not whenever the government wants to hide certain things it does not like. It is important for some things to not take place in camera, as the motion indicates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

In my opinion, this motion is in order, and so we are going to continue the debate.

Mr. Nicholls, you have the floor.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Chair, as you know, our system is based on the Westminster system, and there are procedures and traditions that go along with that tradition. Responsible government has been in Canada since at least 1848. The basis of this system is the idea of parliamentary accountability. It's the foundation of the system.

Select committees in the Westminster system allow the discussion of issues deemed to be relevant to parliament and to legislation. The mother of all parliaments, Westminster itself, has looked at the role of select committees to find out what the role and tasks of those select committees are. They came up with the idea that scrutiny of government, or forms of government legislation, is one of the core tasks of select committees that allow for concepts such as ministerial accountability.

There is some debate now among parliamentarians in Westminster whether that scrutiny is for openness and transparency or whether it's for improving government itself.

It could be said that going in camera might save the government some face when it needs improvement, and often this government doesn't like to be reminded that it needs to improve legislation in certain places. I also think the idea of scrutiny for openness and transparency is an important one. It's one that was popular in this government about seven years ago; it came to power on that idea. Therefore, I find it troubling that we can't limit the use of in camera to what it was specifically intended to do.

I believe that our motion before you shows that we're trying to frame in camera procedures in a way that would protect their original intent, rather than in camera being used for partisan purposes and the avoidance of putting the government in an embarrassing situation where they'll be reminded that they have to improve legislation and therefore open themselves to public scrutiny on this point.

I appeal to you, Chair, to vote in support of this motion, in the sense that we are working within the Westminster system. Certainly as the government in the U.K. has looked at the role of select committees, I would suggest you consider this carefully when casting your vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Nicholls. I generally don't vote on this committee, but I'm assuming you're asking members, through me, to vote for the motion. Your point is well taken.

Now we will hear from Mr. Benskin.

[Tyrone Benskin, NDP, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Chair, my argument will be a little less technical and just a little more grassroots.

One of the things I've discovered since being elected is that our job as MPs is twofold. We are elected by our constituents, the people in our neighbourhood for many of us who live in our constituency. They look to us to be their voice and their eyes and ears on issues that concern them directly within their constituency. It's our job to bring those thoughts, those concerns, those suggestions to the big table in Ottawa. The second level of that is to sometimes represent some of those ideas, or if you hold a ministerial position or a critic position, the broader ideas that touch the rest of the country.

Although question period can be a hoot to watch sometimes, it's a small fraction of the public image or the public visibility of what we do. For many years, and when I entered into this world, I was told that the really heavy lifting was done in committee. This is when everybody sits down and takes time on a proposed bill or takes time on a study to look at certain issues.

I'm hearing from more and more of my constituents that they're tuning in, that they are becoming more and more a part of the process, this governmental process. I think it's a service to our communities and to Canadians for them to have the opportunity to see how we come to some of the decisions to make some of the studies.

There are a lot of things that come across our table. We can only talk about so many things. How do we come to those decisions? When we're making those decisions and when we get to those decisions, what kind of discussion do we have not only with witnesses but among ourselves about those topics?

For that reason, the more often and the more public we can make our committee meetings, the more they serve the people who elected us, the more they serve Canadians, the more they serve us as parliamentarians in openness, debate, discussion, and sharing of ideas.

I think I support this motion. I don't think I support it, I do support this motion, and I urge, through the chair, that fellow members on this committee support it as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Dionne Labelle, you have the floor.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

In Quebec, we have just gone through a very troubled period involving elected municipal officials, the lack of transparency of management, and the lack of transparency around contracts. Citizens do not have any way of forming some clear idea of what goes on in the back offices of municipalities. Behind all of that is a desire to keep democracy blind.

Since I used to sit on this committee, it seemed to me that everyone here was concerned first and foremost with defending minorities and linguistic duality throughout the country. In order to do so, we have to be able to speak openly without hiding behind smoke and mirrors or closed doors. Since my arrival here, three quarters of discussions have been held in camera. That's incredible. It feeds the cynicism of the population regarding politicians. We are all here because we have a common goal. We should depoliticize this committee and work toward a common objective. That is why I am entirely in favour of this motion.

I hope, Mr. Gourde, that you will share this opinion. Otherwise, when you go back to your riding and people ask you what you did this week, you will answer that you worked in committee, and if they ask you what you worked on, you are going to have to answer that you can't talk about it.

What type of democracy is that? These people who pay our salaries and all of the expenses of this committee don't have access to the content of our meetings. As Conservatives who like to manage money well, in theory, you should be able to justify what you do during your hours of work. This whole situation seems out of balance to me.

And so I am asking you to consider this motion carefully.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Do any other members want to speak?

Mr. Williamson, you have the floor.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Very quickly in response to Mr. Benskin, when I'm home in the riding, I, too, point to the work that goes on in committee as a real strength of Parliament and urge voters not to get dismayed by some of the theatrics they sometimes see in question period.

I'm voting against this motion because I actually think this committee—and I'm returning to this committee—does good work when we hear from witnesses, write the reports, and prepare the work. I think when it comes to debating issues of contention about how this committee is going to operate—not the actual points that we're hearing from witnesses—I'd prefer to keep that in camera in order for us to get through it quickly, because I worry, frankly, that if we open it up, we're going to lose focus on the importance of the official language component of this committee and the work we need to do, and we're going to get consumed by politics.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I am going to yield the floor to Ms. St-Denis and then to Mr. Godin.

[Lise St-Denis, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I am going to vote in favour of the motion, mainly because it is one way of rebuilding the confidence of the population. We do very serious work in this committee. I have had the opportunity of replacing other members in several committees. Sometimes the people who come to testify do not agree with the government or, on the other hand, do not agree with the opposition. This allows people to see that we aren't just puppets, and that we do do serious work. So this could restore the confidence of the population in the work parliamentarians do. That is why I am going to vote in favour of the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.