[English]
EVIDENCE
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 13, 2001
• 1111
[English]
The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Tonu Onu): All members are free to make....
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton Centre-East, Canadian Alliance): I'd like to nominate Senator Gerry St. Germain.
Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.): He's not a member.
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Tonu Onu): I'm not allowed to make any rulings, but my understanding is that Senator St. Germain is not a member of the committee.
Mr. Peter Goldring: All right. I withdraw that. I wasn't aware there was a membership rule around that.
[Translation]
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Tonu Onu): It is moved that Senator Maheu be the joint chair of the committee for the Senate.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Clerk (Mr. Tonu Onu): I invite Senator Maheu to take the chair.
The Joint Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Guyanne Desforges): As joint clerk of the committee for the House of Commons, pursuant to Standing Orders 106(1) and 106(2),
[English]
the item is to elect a a co-chair from the House of Commons. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, Lib): I have the honour to nominate my colleague Mauril Bélanger as chair of the committee for the House of Commons.
The Joint Clerk (Ms. Guyanne Desforges): Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Clerk (Ms. Guyanne Desforges): Congratulations.
I would like to invite Mr. Bélanger to take the chair for the election of the vice-chairs.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you for this vote of confidence. I promise to be present and assiduous in my duties.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): We shall now elect the vice-chairs. There are two vice- chairmanships, one for the opposition and one for the government side. We shall begin with the opposition position. Are there any nominations for opposition vice-chair?
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: I'd like to propose, for vice-chair from the opposition party, Scott Reid.
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are there any other motions?
Senator Jean-Maurice Simard (Edmunston, PC): I nominate Senator Jean-Claude Rivest.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Rivest, do you accept?
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest (Stadacona, PC): On condition that there is no opposition.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Monsieur Reid, do you accept the nomination?
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Sure.
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There are two nominations. So there is opposition. If there are two candidates, we will vote. Senator Rivest does not accept his nomination. Are there any other nominations?
I declare Mr. Reid elected. Congratulations.
Are there any nominations for the government vice-chairmanship? Mr. Drouin.
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): I nominate Ms. Yolande Thibeault.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Thibeault sends her apologies. She is detained in Montreal at this time, but she accepts that her name be put forward.
• 1115
Are there any other nominations from the government side?
I declare Ms. Thibeault vice-chair of the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You were given copies of routine motions to establish a framework for the committee's proceedings. We can begin with the first one.
The first routine motion concerns the Sub-Committee on Agenda and Procedure. The subcommittee is made up of seven members, that is to say the joint chairs, vice-chairs, the parliamentary secretary for Canadian Heritage and two representatives from opposition parties.
[English]
This is for the subcommittee, essentially the steering committee. Would someone care to move that?
Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): So moved.
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are you in favour of this motion?
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The next one is research officers, that the committee retain the services of one or more research officers from the Library of Parliament—especially now that we have more research officers—as needed, to assist the committee in its work at the discretion of the co-chairs.
[Translation]
Are there any questions? Does someone want to make a motion?
Thank you.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The next motion concerns the distribution of documents; the joint-clerks would only be authorized to distribute documents that are in both official languages.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I so move.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The motion is moved by Mr. Sauvageau.
Senator Joan Fraser: I would like a clarification. For official documents, I understand, but does this mean that the witnesses will have to provide these documents? For instance, if someone is coming in from the Yukon and only has the English version of a study he has done, must he provide a translation? His document cannot be distributed without a translation? What does it mean?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It means, essentially, that the witnesses who want to testify here and table documents must do so sufficiently in advance to allow time for the documents to be translated and tabled with the committee in both languages. In the past, when documents were not translated, the witness made his presentation in the language of his choice, naturally, but the documentation was not distributed before it was available in both languages.
The clerks tend to encourage the witnesses, because they are always given a few days' notice, to provide their written documentation sufficiently early so that we can have it translated.
Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): But the translation, if I understand correctly, can be done here if they don't have the means to have it done.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes. It is not up to them to have the translation done.
Senator Joan Fraser: But it will be done. That is what I wanted to know. It will be done.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes, it will.
Senator Joan Fraser: So, nothing will be excluded.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): On the contrary.
Senator Joan Fraser: Perfect.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Documents will be excluded if they are not tabled in both languages.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): They will not be tabled until they have been translated.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We understand each other.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Reid.
Mr. Scott Reid: I'm just worried that we might potentially wind up cutting ourselves off from documents that might be relevant. Perhaps I can give you an example that came up in the House recently.
• 1120
There was discussion as to
whether or not looking at the rulings of the Speaker
of the House
of Commons in London would be appropriate given the
fact that they're available in English only.
If, for example, we were to discuss that here, there
would be a problem in even looking at these documents and
distributing them to members of the committee,
particularly since they came up on short notice.
Therefore, I wonder if it would be in order to suggest an amendment that the co-clerks be authorized to distribute only the documents available in both languages, subject to the ability of the majority of this committee to override that particular ruling at any given time.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You can move that amendment if you wish, Mr. Reid, and then we'll dispose of it. As it stands now, unanimity can take care of that, but it requires unanimity, as opposed to what you're suggesting, a majority.
Mr. Scott Reid: I guess I'm suggesting a majority, and I wonder if that could be considered.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You can move it, and the committee will dispose of your motion one way or the other.
[Translation]
Has the meaning been understood?
[English]
Would you care to repeat it, so that everybody is clear on it?
Mr. Scott Reid: Essentially, that should the occasion arise where documentation is available but not in both languages, a majority of the committee have the right to authorize its distribution to the various committee members, rather than unanimity being required for that.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I'd like to speak to that, Mr. Co-Chair.
This country has two official languages. We have members of both official languages on this committee, and I think it would be totally unfair for us to distribute something in either of the two official languages. Translation services are available here, and they can be expedited if need be. To follow your example, if England chooses to send us a document, in an emergency we could have it translated almost immediately.
So I'm afraid I, for one, can't support your proposition.
Senator Joan Fraser: Since I opened this can of worms I wonder if I could add something. I think the example Mr. Reid raises is an excellent one, because it's probably the most classic example of a document that we would receive in English only, just by its very nature. But in this Parliament, our debates journal, Hansard, translates overnight sometimes very lengthy extracts from British debates and rulings, and on a regular basis. Our Speaker's rulings, which frequently quote at length from British precedents, are translated with no difficulty. I don't think we need to worry.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chairman, I understand the purpose of the motion, but I think there's an easier way out of this.
[Translation]
The simplest way would be to give you those documents before the presentation so that they can be translated expeditiously.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Anyone else on this?
Mr. Reid.
[Translation]
Mr. Scott Reid: I understand very well that we must be very respectful of both languages.
[English]
I raise this point not to say that we should not be respectful. I do think majority rule on an individual case hardly suggests that we're not being respectful. It does suggest that we're trying to deal with a circumstance that may have arisen when, for whatever reason, something may not have been translated.
Perhaps I can give a personal example. When I was a witness before the committee last February on Bill C-20, the Clarity Act, I brought forward some documentation. I had not been told beforehand that I would be required to submit it in both languages. I would happily have availed myself of that, although it would have been of considerable expense to the committee. There were articles, documents, and so on.
When I presented the documents, the members weren't able to look at them, and therefore they weren't able to follow some of the discussion I was providing. That, I think, was a disadvantage to them in their deliberations. Had they been able to avail themselves of those documents, by a majority vote, I think that would have been an advantage to them in their deliberations.
I offer this motion in the spirit of trying to improve the efficacy of this committee. This of course applies to documents submitted, for whatever reason, in French only as well as those arriving in English only.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are we prepared for the vote?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa-Orleans Lib.): The question of the majority rule bothers me, Mr. Chairman. We have two official languages. We are in the Parliament of Canada and not in the Parliament of Great Britain. We are the Official Languages Committee. I would look rather unfavourably on a situation where all of a sudden the language of the minority could be shot down by the majority, which could come here with bad intentions.
The intent of the act is indeed that both official languages of the country be respected equally. We are at the Committee on Official Languages. We must thus maintain the process we had already established.
• 1125
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Losier-Cool.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Tracadie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I believe the Official Languages Act stipulates that documents must be submitted in both languages. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the act here, but I believe we have no choice. We don't even need to hold this debate.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak?
We will now go to the vote on the amendment moved by Mr. Reid.
(Amendment negatived)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We shall now vote on the main motion.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Next is the printing of the minutes of proceedings and evidence:
Mr. Dan McTeague: I so move.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Turning to quorum:
[Translation]
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): On reduced quorum for receiving evidence:
Senator Joan Fraser: I so move.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Senator.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The next motion is about the time allocated to question witnesses. I will give you a little time to read it. If someone then wishes to move its adoption, we shall deal with it.
Does someone want to move the adoption of the motion?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have a question.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau, you have a question?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: This is probably obvious... I see that we mention the Canadian Alliance, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, and then the Liberal Party. When I read "the Liberal Party" or "the Conservative Party", this refers to the Senate or the House of Commons, doesn't it?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That's correct.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Normally, that is not how it is. This is for joint committees.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Of course, you are right.
The motion is moved by Mr. Drouin. If there is no debate, we will go to the vote.
[English]
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The motion on witness expenses is a very standard proceeding.
Mr. Dan McTeague: I so move.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. McTeague.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We shall now deal with the motion on notices of motions. This is a standard motion that is adopted by all committees.
[English]
Mr. Dan McTeague: I so move.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. McTeague.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I think the motion on working lunches is also fairly standard, except that apparently some committees have preferential treatment—but not this one.
[Translation]
Does someone want to move it?
Mr. Dan McTeague: I move it, on condition that we not be given other people's lunches.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You are probably referring to the leftovers from the Finance Committee, is that it?
A voice: They aren't edible.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You can express your wishes to the clerks.
Mr. Sauvageau, do you move the motion?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I so move.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are there any questions or comments?
(Motion agreed to)
• 1130
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The next motion deals with the transcription of in camera hearings:
Are there any questions or comments?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to have the definition of the word “consultation”.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will read it. It means that copies shall not be made.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Could someone say that he wants to consult the minutes, have them sent to his office, and...
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You must go to consult them in the office of the clerk and leave them there.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Fine.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Madam Senator Fraser.
Senator Joan Fraser: Would the person who consults the transcription in that way then have the right to reveal the gist of what went on?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No. What I mean is that in camera meetings are held in camera to protect the confidentiality of the debates. If someone wants to consult the documents for his own purposes, for his work and so on, that is acceptable. But normally the content of the hearing should not be made public, even though you may consult the transcription for your own purposes, for research, and so on. But it is the members of the committee who are entitled to consult the minutes. We have to agree: not just anyone may do so. If I am mistaken, Madam, please correct me.
Senator Joan Fraser: It has to be specified because this has already come up in other circumstances. I wanted it to be very clear.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now I am only referring to transcriptions of hearings. What about witnesses we heard in camera and documents that were distributed to us? I believe that is where there was a problem in a Senate committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That is part of the transcription. If a witness testifies in camera for some reason, normally, he...
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Yes, but he gave me a document.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That becomes part of the transcription and of the documentation of the hearing.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Fine. And what happens to the document at the end of the meeting?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It is appended, to my knowledge, to the proceedings of that in camera hearing. It can be consulted at the office of the joint clerks.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: But if I leave with the document, I can make copies.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If a report is tabled in camera and the witness has brought it to contribute to an in camera discussion—and I don't want to mislead anyone here, either—it is part of the transcription and is appended to the minutes of the meeting. If the witness wants to make his document public, he or she is free to release it. At that time, it will become part of everything that is made public on Parliament Hill.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: In that case, there is no problem, if it is the witness's wish. But if the witness is not in agreement and if one of the members of the committee has decided to make a copy, there is a problem.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Madam, with all due respect for the members of the committee, it is up to them to restrain themselves.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Yes, that's it.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Madam Losier-Cool, there are members of the opposition or of the government party, even in committees of the House of Commons, who sometimes leak complete reports before their adoption. We have seen this happen; we have heard about it. But let me propose something that might obtain unanimous consent. Instead of the period, after the word “consultation”, I would put a comma and I would add the words “par les membres du comité”.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Who had moved this?
Is this a friendly amendment, Mr. McTeague?
Mr. Dan McTeague: Yes, absolutely.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So, we will add the words “par les membres du comité”. In English, it would be:
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: My question was answered.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Are there any other questions? We are ready for the vote.
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Very well. We shall move on to the first report. Would someone care to move it?
[English]
Would someone care to move it?
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I so move.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It is in keeping with what we have done, in any case.
[English]
If there are no comments or questions—
Mr. Scott Reid: Actually, there's a typographical error.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Where?
Mr. Scott Reid: It's in the second-last line of the English version. There's a period between the words “present” and “and”. I assume that will be removed.
• 1135
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Done.
(Motion agreed to)
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There is another one.
[English]
Bear with us. We'll be out of here by noon.
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): The joint chair-persons of the Senate report the expenditures of the committee incurred during the previous session to the Senate. It is routine procedure, it is not complicated.
Senator Joan Fraser: I so move.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It has been moved. Are there any questions or comments?
(Motion agreed to)
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We are already in March and this is our first meeting. Normally, this meeting ends as soon as the committee has been struck. With your permission, I would like us to go a bit further in our work, on condition that we finish in 20 minutes, no more. We could begin with a round table, if possible, to decide on the topics the committee would like to debate or which we would like to examine within the next few weeks or months.
We can do that. This work is normally done in camera so that people can put topics on the table. If you want to, we can go around the table and then go back to the steering committee to attempt to get a draft work program drawn up. We haven't had a chance to talk about this very much, but I am open to your suggestions. I hope we all are.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have not looked at the list to see who was there before and who was not, but I talked about it a little with Ms. Folco, I must confess. Did I use the right verb, the right word?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I wanted to congratulate you on it.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But seriously, for my part, and I did not discuss it with other committee members—I would like our first task as a committee to consist in going to meet francophone and anglophone minorities where they live, in order to see what they have to say, since they are the ones we are here to defend. We have to see how they feel, take a pulse, and this should guide the priorities of the committee.
Personally, I think the French-language broadcasting service to francophone minority communities in Canada is really very important. I'm certain that if we put a question to the minister, she will tell us that it is up to the CRTC to respond and that she is not the CRTC. So, I would prefer that we do something that concerns us. I thus propose that in the course of the next few months we go to meet with these communities on their territory in order to have them express their needs and requirements to us.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau is alluding to a debate which this committee previously engaged in regarding the possibility of traveling across Canada to meet minority official language communities. Until now, we haven't been able to agree unanimously on this proposal. If don't know if that unanimity exists here and now, but this is certainly something that this 36th Parliament would like to do.
[English]
If Mr. Sauvageau's suggestion were to be followed up on, the question would be whether or not there is unanimous will around the table to embark upon such a tour, at a suitable time, of course.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: May I say something further.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Go ahead.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would suggest that we also include the military bases in our tour.
Mr. Dan McTeague: I was about to make the same suggestion. I wanted some assurances that we would be meeting with these communities. It's an excellent idea and I suggest we endorse it.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Let me flip it around. Would there be opposition to the committee embarking, or to having our clerks work on such an exercise?
• 1140
Senator Joan Fraser: This is a huge committee. Displacing the entire committee, or even a big proportion of the committee, is going to be very burdensome, very difficult to arrange, and very expensive. I think it would be useful if we could find a formula by which a representative but much smaller group of us could go—and not always the same people, although I'm not saying a favoured few get to travel across the country.
I know we in the Senate are trying quite hard to be very careful about the expenses that we launch committees upon, and we can't just do it on our own say-so.
I think it would be reasonable to use smaller groups.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Losier-Cool.
[Translation]
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we're trying to justify the work that has been done in the past. The concerns raised by Senator Joan Fraser were discussed when the travel itinerary was first drawn up. It has already been decided that the full committee will not travel across Canada. Certain regions have been targeted and it's not necessary for the full committee to visit each and every region. We can share the workload. I think we can look for inspiration to what's been done in the past, to our files and to past proposals.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Do you wish to speak to the same issue, Mr. Sauvageau?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I've two points to make. I agree with Senator Losier-Cool in that we should look to what has been done in the past. I would ask the research officers to prepare some material for us to give us a head start. I totally agree that the committee should split up.
I served on the Foreign Affairs Committee which split into two groups when it visited the Arctic. One group toured the northeast, and the other, the northwest.
I also served on the Heritage Committee with Mr. Bélanger. It too was split into two groups at one point. I have no problem with the committee splitting up into two, or even three, groups.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): [Editor's note: inaudible]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, I hope that we use...
I too agree that the committee should be split, and from the standpoint of costs as well, a reality that we cannot overlook. However, at the same time, costs shouldn't prevent us from moving forward.
[English]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Goldring.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Mr. Chairman, as vice-chairman of the SCONDVA committee, I'm wondering if this would not be something to work on together. In other words, we are going to be touring the bases with the quality of life initiatives in order to see how they are. Would this not be a situation in which you can do as the senator suggests, and combine efforts to save on the costs, particularly when dealing with the defence installations?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The comments are noted, and we would perhaps bring this to the steering committee, which could put forward a proposal to the full committee at the next meeting if we can get the steering committee set up.
Mr. Dan McTeague: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify my position with respect to Monsieur Sauvageau's proposal. It was excellent except for the last part dealing with the military bases. I think that's a different kettle of fish.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Understood.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: We can forget it. I don't have a problem with it.
[English]
Mr. Peter Goldring: It could be a cause to discuss and investigate under the military initiatives.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Certainly, and we could refer it to that committee.
Mr. Peter Goldring: Yes.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are there other topics that people would want? I've got a whole slew of them, by the way.
[Translation]
I'd like to mention a few, if that's all right.
Last summer, I read in the newspaper that a gentleman from New Brunswick had filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages over the fact that he could not get CPAC in English in Moncton. In my opinion, this question involving CPAC, the channel over which House proceedings are broadcast, could be examined by the committee, given that the contract between the House and CPAC is up for renewal at the end of this summer, or so I believe.
Perhaps this is something we need to look into further, namely whether all Canadians, English speaking as well as French speaking, can listen to the debates of the House of Commons, their Parliament, as well as to the debates of the committees and of the Senate. This proposal covers all of this ground.
• 1145
I think this is something to consider and until such time as
our trip is arranged, CPAC could be the focus of our discussions.
I don't know if everyone is in agreement on this. At issue are the
rights of Anglophones as well as those of Francophones.
Madam.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: I agree that the committee should discuss CPAC. However, there's something else I think we should discuss.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Go ahead.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: One of the responsibilities with which this committee is entrusted is to examine cases of failure to comply with the Official Languages Act.
In all of the reports issued by the current and by the previous commissioner, the most glaring shortcoming, and the one most often noted, concerns Air Canada. Of all the complaints filed with the Office of the Commissioner, the number directed at Air Canada exceeds... I believe it accounts for 30 per cent or more of the complaints received. Senator Simard, perhaps you could... Transportation and Air Canada's policies are very much in the news these days. We need more than the commitment made by the Minister of Transport to the Transport Committee last year. At the time, he assured us that...
This is a very timely issue, one that goes to the very heart of the committee's mandate.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. Your suggestion is so noted.
Senator Fraser.
Senator Joan Fraser: I concur with Senator Losier-Cool. I think the time is right to convene representatives of Air Canada, members of the traveling public and members of the public at large as well to hear what they have to say.
On a more general note, one of the problems is that this committee has a very broad mandate. Occasionally it loses its sense of direction and we're left with the impression that nothing has been accomplished. We hear from witnesses, but what then?
Therefore, until such time as we establish contacts in the field, which are very important to the future, I think it's a very good idea to score a few quick hits in terms of our relations with both Houses and tackle issues like Air Canada and CPAC.
I've always been interested in one question. What happens to the funds which the federal government allocates to the provinces for minority language education? How and where is this money spent? What kind of accountability regime is in place?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There are two or three other items I would like to mention, and then perhaps we can wrap up this portion of the meeting.
One issue is human resources and manpower, Francophone as well as Anglophone, as well as funding of community colleges.
Another subject that's likely to arise again at some point is the status of official languages in Ottawa, our Nation's Capital.
Also, we'll need to invite the Commissioner to present her report to the committee.
There's also the matter of access to the justice system, an issue that was raised at the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, particularly since the Supreme Court's ruling in Beaulac. Undoubtedly there are other issues.
I agree with the Senator's position: we should go with subjects where we can have an impact of some kind. If I may, and unless there are any objections, I propose that we start with the two issues mentioned, namely CPAC and Air Canada, or even the transportation issue, which could include VIA Rail.
Senator Joan Fraser: Let's start with Air Canada. We can deal with the rail industry separately.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Agreed.
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: The complaints were directed at Air Canada.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): CPAC and Air Canada then? How's that?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I agree.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If you're thinking about inviting representatives of Air Canada to testify, let me tell you here and now that the airline's western regional division did a survey with a view to eliminating service in French in British Columbia, Alberta and elsewhere. I think we should hear from the individual who came up with the brilliant idea and hear what he has to say.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Fine then. If members have names of potential witnesses to suggest, can we agree that they should submit them to the joint clerks by Friday of this week so that we can start working next week?
The are two things left to settle: the matter of the steering committee—the two opposition members—and finally, the scheduling and frequency of our meetings.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The location as well.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We'll leave the location up to our clerks.
• 1150
Can we settle the matter of the sub-committee membership?
[English]
There's a need for two members of the opposition, in addition to the two co-chairs, the two vice-chairs, and the parliamentary secretary. I understand they're not all here, but would the opposition parties be prepared to choose amongst themselves?
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I nominate myself.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Unless there are any objections...
[English]
I'm trying to be as cooperative as I can here. Monsieur Sauvageau has nominated himself, which is perfectly legitimate, as one of the two members of the opposition. Are there any objections to that?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Sauvageau, you've been selected as one of the two opposition members to serve on the sub-committee. We need to select one more opposition member.
[English]
We have the right to one more.
Monsieur Goldring.
Mr. Peter Goldring: I would like to nominate Mr. Reid.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): He's already on the steering committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): He's already on the steering committee as vice-chair.
[Translation]
Senator Losier-Cool proposes Senator Rivest. Barring any objections, I declare Senator Rivest appointed to the sub-committee as well.
That's settled then. We have a sub-committee comprised of Mr. Sauvageau and Senator Rivest, along with the ex-officio members mentioned.
The question of the timing and frequency of meetings is always complex.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: On this note, I have a question which may seem a little odd. What happened last session? That's my first question. I think my whip believes things will be the same as before and that's why I'm inquiring. I move that we do as we did in the past.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): To answer your question, Mr. Sauvageau, if I'm not mistaken, the committee met once week, Wednesday afternoons.
Some hon. Members: It met on Tuesdays.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'm sorry, on Tuesdays. The block of time assigned to us was Tuesday and Thursday afternoons. Let's discuss the time. Does anyone have a problem with the time assigned to us, namely Tuesday and Thursday afternoons?
[English]
Is that suitable?
[Translation]
Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool: Based on past experience, the problem with Tuesday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. is that around 4 or 5 p.m., there are often votes in the House of Commons.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If we begin on time, that is at 3:30 p.m., we'll be finished in time for the vote. What I'm concerned about, personally, is Thursday afternoon. Will there be members in attendance?
I'll admit something else. Meeting once a week is not that onerous. Again, it's my personal opinion. I would be inclined to encourage the committee to consider meeting twice a week,. However, the committee is free to decide its own fate.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Again, I agree with you, Mr. Bélanger. I propose that we meet Tuesday afternoon and Wednesday afternoon.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We can give it a try.
The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Several committees meet on Wednesday at 3:30 p.m.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Does anyone have a conflict on Wednesday afternoons?
[English]
Is there anyone here who can't? So let's try it.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: As parliamentary secretary, I serve on another committee.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We'll work it out. Can we at least give it a try?
[English]
Let's try Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 3:30 p.m. Is there any opposition to that? If it doesn't work, we'll readjust.
[Translation]
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I'm still concerned about the subject matter selected. I realize that many complaints have been filed against Air Canada and that CPAC is important, but another problem looms large, namely the state of francophone communities outside Quebec.
• 1155
We haven't received much in the way of answers on a number of
substantive questions and only a passing reference was made to them
in the last Throne Speech. The whole question of linguistic duality
is currently in the forefront. Political leadership on this issue
is not very clear. Over the past few years, political leaders have
certainly been less vocal about this than Mr. Trudeau or Mr.
Mulroney were. I'm not making this up. Everyone knows that the
Commissioner of Official Languages made a very direct reference to
this matter in her last report.
It's always been a priority of Canada's francophone communities to know exactly where the government was heading with the Official Languages Act. While government policy may not have changed, what about political commitment? I'm thinking here, among other things, about the report filed by my colleague, Senator Simard, which was extremely incisive. The committee's concerns haven't changed.
This committee is visited in turn by a series of ministers as the days and weeks go by. As a rule, they are very sympathetic, but given their different spheres of responsibility, they come here to answer questions about their respective programs, and nothing more.
I'm not sure who is responsible for this matter—it may be the Prime Minister, and I don't want to take it to that level - but as I see it, we have a problem here in Canada as to the direction the government wants to take with the issue of linguistic duality. I'm not certain whether this is something for our committee to tackle, but I think the whole issue needs to be clarified first. Then, of course, we could examine a variety of questions. I'm not sure how our committee would go about doing that, but I think this is a critical step. Do you understand what I'm saying?
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Absolutely.
Senator Jean-Claude Rivest: I just wanted to mention this.
The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you. If there's nothing further, I would like to adjourn the meeting as it is now 12 noon.
Our next meeting will be next Tuesday at 3:30 p.m. On the agenda will be a discussion of CPAC. The clerks will advise you of the location.
Thank you and have a good day.
The meeting is adjourned.
