Official Languages Committee on Aug. 12th, 2020

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I want to go back to the point at hand, because this is what has been happening in my experience. I can speak to my experience, by the way, as a member of Parliament. I have a right to sit at this table. I have a right to sit at this table and debate in real ways and in good faith, and that's what I'd like to do here today.

Going back to this language of “contract” that has been used repeatedly by members from the government side, that's not what happened. We know that to not be what happened, because the whole thrust of their defence against this scandal is that it was a contribution agreement and therefore outside of the parameters of typical contracts and typical due diligence.

I would argue through you, Mr. Chair, to the mover of the amendment and to folks around this committee that there's been a quarter of the public service on furlough and the sole-source contracting, if we can use that language of “contract”, is in fact the privatization of public services. I would argue that we have thousands of members of the public service ready and willing to deliver this, just like they did with CERB, just like they did with the wage subsidy, just like they did with the rental subsidy, but that's another story for another day, I suppose.

To suggest somehow that the contract that was put forward, the annexations, all these other things.... I think Minister Qualtrough was quite clear in her testimony that she had nothing to do with this. Minister Chagger was quite clear in her testimony that there were gaps in the due diligence.

When we talk about due diligence—and this is germane to the difference between a contract and a contribution agreement, which is germane again to the amendment—we had the Clerk of the Privy Council admit in committee that there were specifics he didn't know about. We had the chief of staff, Katie Telford, testify in the finance committee that she didn't even know the contract was to the WE Charity Foundation. Basic levels of due diligence have not been met on this file. This is just another one of those instances.

I won't be supporting the amendment and I hope, Mr. Chair, that if we're going to proceed and if I'm going to be in this committee in these ways, maybe we can have a list of the applicable points of order and a list of the applicable points of personal privilege presented to the committee just to make sure that we're all debating around the same terms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

We now have two people on the list, Ms. Lambropoulos and Mr. Godin.

Ms. Lambropoulos, you have the floor.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

It's been a while since this was going to be my point, but I'll say it anyway.

My colleague, Mr. Beaulieu, said that,

in his surroundings, not too many people have heard of WE, and allow me just to throw it out there that WE does—

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I have a point of order

,Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, you asked me to speak to Mrs. Lalonde's amendment. I do not understand—

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, Mr. Godin, but it's a fairly broad discussion. We've heard Mr. Green name a number of people, for example. As long as it touches on the subject, I think Ms. Lambropoulos can continue her comments.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

WE, as an organization, services young people, services youth, and I know them because I'm a teacher—not because I'm an anglophone, but because I'm a teacher—and I have a lot of younger friends and I'm also one of the younger members of Parliament, so it's not too far from my generation, to be honest with you. That's why I have a better knowledge of this organization.

It seemed as though he was suggesting that even though anglophones know of WE in Quebec, francophones don't know of it, which I don't think is the case, because there are way too many schools that are currently involved or that have been involved with WE, so it wouldn't make sense for that to be the case.

Even so, what are we saying? I mean, we are on the official languages committee. Our mandate is to protect the official languages in Quebec and in the rest of Canada. As an anglophone Quebecker, I personally have a problem with saying that anglophone Quebeckers may know about WE but that it's not considered to be present in Quebec. I think it's wrong to say that it's not part of Quebec. To say that is to completely ignore the community of anglophone Quebec, of English-speaking Quebec.

I understand the importance of it being in French. Once again, that's why I was happy that most of the conference was in French, but I feel that saying that it's not considered to be in Quebec just because a lot of French-speaking people seem not to know about it is going a little far, and it's a bit of an insult to the English-speaking community. I don't think the current wording of.... I know I'm talking about the motion, the original motion at this point, but I don't think it's representative of the reality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos.

We'll now go to Mr. Godin.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Chair, I will be very brief.

I will speak to the amendment to the motion that was moved by my colleague.

Mrs. Lalonde, I think your intention is commendable. I sincerely appreciate it.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, the amendment is not in order. Therefore, I will not vote for it because it is contradictory. In the last paragraph, it says, “That the Committee...hear from relevant witnesses and report back to the House on the issue”.

In her presentation, Mrs. Lalonde said that the amendment is grafted onto the initial motion, which asks the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages, the Honourable Mélanie Joly, to come and testify for at least two hours.

You know my position on the next vote. I will not be able to grant the request.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Chong, you have the floor.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to support the amendment either. I appreciate the member's bringing it forward, but I think it doesn't add to the original motion.

Now, I fully acknowledge that the original motion is not perfectly worded—very few motions are—but I think we should stick with the original motion and proceed on that basis.

Look, here's why I think this committee should be seized with this issue and proceed with a study over a few meetings on this issue. Parliament has essentially been suspended since March 13. When it has met, it has met for a few brief minutes before going into a special committee or committee of the whole. In those special committees, the House of Commons is not sitting; it's the special committee or the committee of the whole that's sitting, which has virtually no power. It simply has the power for members to ask questions, for members to give statements and for members to present petitions. The usual powers of Parliament—to present motions, to introduce bills, to hold the government accountable—simply aren't there.

This committee, though, has an opportunity for us to hold the government accountable on this important issue.

It's only a small slice, a $1-billion slice of a $231-billion stimulus package. However, the fact is that the government has been operating under extraordinary emergency powers, granted to it on March 13 of this year, and we have a job to do, as parliamentarians on this committee, to make sure that a portion of that money is being spent in the proper manner. In this case, we have a responsibility to look at exactly what happened to ensure that the other monies that are actually going out the door are being properly spent.

The money hasn't actually been fully returned. There was $30 million transferred to the WE organization. As of the last news that I read, $22 million has been sent back and some $8 million is still waiting to be sent back.

The heart of the matter is this: The government has maintained from day one that the WE organization was the only organization in the entire country, including the federal public service—some 250,000 strong—that could deliver this program. Increasingly it looks like that's a falsehood. Increasingly it looks like that's not the case. They clearly couldn't deliver it to official French-language communities in Quebec and official French-language minority communities outside of the province of Quebec. That's why they had to enter into a contract and hire a lobbying group to do that.

It calls into question why this contract was let in the first place. It was signed on June 23 and backdated to May 5, even before the federal cabinet had considered it. We need to know why that was the case. It doesn't look like the government's story is holding up. It doesn't look like it had nothing to do with this: that this was all to do with the federal bureaucracy, which recommended this; that it wasn't involved in the early stages of helping to draft the proposal; and that it wasn't at all involved with creating this program and structuring it in a way so that WE Charity would get this program. It doesn't hold up that WE Charity was the only organization able to deliver this.

It calls into question why this whole thing came to be. Increasingly, to me, it looks like the Liberal government and particularly Liberal ministers were out to help their friends and supporters out there, using the cover of a pandemic and the extraordinary emergency powers they have to do this.

We cannot, as a committee, let the government get away with this. We have a responsibility, not just to the people who pay tax in this country but to the broader public, to ensure that there's good governance in this country and that we get to the bottom of this and hold the government accountable.

That's why I think we should have a few meetings on this, why we shouldn't accept this amendment and water down this motion, and get to the bottom of this. We want to ensure we understand exactly why this contract was given to the WE organization, exactly why that was done, despite the fact that they couldn't deliver it to 25% of this country, to some nine million Canadians whose first official language is French.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to correct the facts.

Ms. Lambropoulos, I did not say that anglophones are aware of WE Charity. I said that the Liberals are aware of it.

We seem to have really mixed things up. I have not.

I would add that the initial proposal already says that this “raises serious concerns about the way the government works and the compliance of the Official Languages Act by the federal government”. So this allows us to broaden the investigation and the study that we are going to do.

I too would reject the amendment. I think we have to proceed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Mrs. Lalonde, you have the floor.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair

I would first like to clarify the following.

There are already several committees looking at this. Some of my colleagues and I have met in the last month for the issue about WE. Several ministers have attended meetings, and actually the Prime Minister of Canada spoke about it too.

Fundamentally, when I look at my riding, the great riding of Orleans, the best riding,

and the most beautiful in Canada, I would like to tell my colleagues that, when people call us at the office, they talk about the precarious situation that businesses are in because of this pandemic, which we are still experiencing today. Around this table, for example, we are not all close together because we maintain the two-metre distance. Moreover, we wear our masks when we talk to each other.

Outside the walls of this beautiful House, important issues are still at stake. People in my community are telling me about them.

When they're talking to me, do you know what they're asking? First they ask, “Are my kids going to be safe at school?” They also talk about their businesses and the wage subsidy. I was so happy to see that the government actually extended it. We've had this collaboration.

This committee is supposed to focus on the importance of the official languages. Some of my colleagues have been doing that for years. A lot of work has been done to get support from everyone. The next national census will contain questions that are very important to us on this committee.

I'm going to read the amendment again, just to bring back the point that I was trying to make with it. I don't know if it's because it's an amendment by a Liberal that we feel threatened, but I will say to all of you that, actually, the amendment would examine the fear around the due diligence. This amendment would ensure that both due diligence and the contractual obligations are sufficient to ensure protection.

I have to say to members here, and to the rest of Canada, that sadly, kids across Canada

will never know about this program, because WE Charity, in the wake of the events we are familiar with, has released itself from its contractual obligations by withdrawing.

I'm going to read the amendment again, and I just want to make sure that my colleagues understand clearly that the amendment is for bringing in the context that I think our Conservative colleagues are trying to include, which is the importance of official languages inside any contract that the Government of Canada signs.

I'll read it in English.

That the Committee wishes to ensure that both the due diligence and contractual obligations are sufficient to ensure that any outsourcing of Federal Government programs or services requires delivery of programs in both official languages to the same level as if the Government had delivered the programs and services itself.

As we know, colleagues, several times over the years the Government of Canada has had to award contracts. In our committee, we must ensure that the contracts are respected.

The other part of the amendment says, “That the Committee study the language requirements associated with the outsourcing of federal government responsibilities and hold at least 4 meetings”—and I thought I was very candid in saying four—“on the subject and hear from relevant witnesses”. I hear the comments about the witnesses. You've listed some of them, but I always believe that witnesses should be discussed in subcommittee. The amendment ends with “and report back to the House on the issue.”

I would like my colleagues to reconsider their position. We want to improve the proposal in your motion, Mr. Godin and my Conservative colleagues. We hope to get your support again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mrs. Lalonde.

There are now two people on the list, Mr. Arseneault and Ms. Romanado.

The floor is yours, Mr. Arseneault.

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With regard to the motion, I'm taking a little detour to comment on what our colleague Mr. Chong told us. We talked about ethics. He talked about concerns about ethics, conflicts of interest, finances, public funds, and so on. I have no objection to discussing these things in a context other than the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which does not have the mandate to do so. There are committees that do have those mandates and they do it very skilfully and very well. They have done so particularly in recent weeks with regard to the WE affair. We all know that here.

The mandate of the Standing Committee on Official Languages addresses the application of and respect for language rights in Canada. The amendment proposed by my colleague is along those lines. We can start from the premise that WE Charity has caused some concerns about its capacity to be bilingual and to provide services, good, weak or average. In any case, a contract no longer exists. It would be pointless to stop at this study because there is no longer a contract. What would be the purpose of this study?

If we start from the premise that the WE episode has cast doubt in our minds about third parties who are contracted to provide services on behalf of the Government of Canada, if we start from that premise, there is doubt. How do we ensure that this is respected across the country and not just for one event or one organization? That is reflected in the proposed amendment. That is within the mandate of this committee. It does not preclude any colleague around the table from asking the ministers questions about WE or about other contracts. In fact, we are running with the ball; we are starting from a doubt that has been sown by one event and extending it to a topic that is fully within the mandate of this committee.

Mr. Chong, I would like to correct what you said earlier, with no ill intention: very few motions are perfectly worded. I have been a member of this committee for five years. Mr. Généreux may be able to correct me, but to my knowledge, all of the motions that have come through in the last five years have been tabled with amendments from all parties on both sides of the table, and always unanimously. Virtually every report that has been written in the last five years of the committee has been unanimous. So we make great motions in our committee; we make wonderful motions.

In fact, we are not in the process of doing something partisan. Our concern is that we want to know what we need to do to ensure that, under the umbrella of official languages, third-party organizations that get service contracts from the Government of Canada and that have to speak as if they were the Government of Canada, comply with the linguistic obligations of this great country.

That is the amendment on the table, as proposed by my colleague. Then, in subcommittee, we can decide whether we want to call other witnesses or whether we will stick with those already proposed. We had already decided to create a subcommittee to deal specifically with the witness list. We can do that later. We can limit ourselves to those, but one does not preclude the other. I am wondering, on behalf of Canadians and taxpayers, what would be the point of the motion as put forward by the opposition, by the Conservatives. How would we be serving Canadians by focusing on a contract that no longer exists?

Why do we not seize the opportunity to address the doubt that has been cast on the linguistic capacity of third-party organizations by this event? Why not conduct a study that is consistent with the mandate of this committee, which has been a superb committee, Mr. Chong, for at least five years?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mr. Arseneault.

Mrs. Romanado, you have the floor.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My colleague Monsieur Arseneault stole some of my thunder there, but I want to get back to the focus, which is that we have an amendment in front of us. That's the focus of the conversation.

I'm subbing in. I have one of the nicest ridings in Canada. It has a borough in it that has bilingual status, which I'm really happy about. I make sure that my riding provides services in both official languages, because we're about service.

The point of this amendment, I think, captures a lot of what we're hearing today. We're all saying the same thing. We're all saying that it is incredibly important that Canadians be served in the language of their choice of the two official languages, and I think this encompasses that. There are concerns, whether it be a contract that has the capacity to provide services in French or a contract able to provide services in English. I think it's really important. If we're going to do this as a committee and we want to take seriously official languages and the importance of supporting both official languages, then I think this amendment captures that.

I like the idea that we've put in there four meetings. Maybe it's debatable how many we need, but I think we're all in agreement. That was where I was hoping to get to. The mandate of this committee and the amendment in front of us is to talk about the importance of supporting both official languages and making sure we do everything in our power to support those two official languages.

I know that my colleague Monsieur Beaulieu brought up earlier whether there was French writing on warnings on packaging or something. In Quebec, in my riding, in the middle of the pandemic, at the worst part of the pandemic, my anglophone community did not get any information from the Quebec government. It was only unilingual, in French. It took a couple of weeks before we got the notices in English.

If we're going to talk about providing services to Canadians and supporting both official languages, I think it is an absolutely non-partisan way to have Monsieur Godin's motion before us with an amendment to say.... If we're going to look at it, let's look at it. Let's do it right.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Mrs. Romanado.

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I ask that we vote on my colleague's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

The debate is still open. If there are no other speakers and if you are in agreement, we will proceed to vote on the amendment moved by Mrs. Lalonde.

(Amendment negatived: yeas 5; nays 6.)

We are back to the original motion.

I briefly saw three hands raised, Ms. Lattanzio, Ms. Lambropoulos, and Mr. Godin.

Ms. Lattanzio, you have the floor.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I'm going to make this very brief.

With regard to the discussions here today, I think that, fundamentally, the common thread among all parties, all members around this table, is to determine whether WE had the capacity to deliver the Canada student service grant in both official languages. This is what I retained from the discussion here today, Mr. Chairman.

I'm going to propose that this be the amendment we incorporate into my colleague Mr. Godin's main motion, if we want. I think that's the undisputed, uncontradicted version of all the interventions that have been made, so I'm putting it out there on the floor. I'm suggesting that we incorporate that in the first paragraph as an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Okay, you mean it as an amendment.