LANG Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

1535

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.))

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. John Herron (Fundy--Royal, PC/DR)

1540

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orleans, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1545

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. John Herron

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Reid

1550

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Joint Chair

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Ms. Sarmite Bulte

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1555

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. John Herron

Mr. Herron

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. John Herron

1600

Mr. Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

L'hon. Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Reid

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1605

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Sauvageau

Mr. Mauril Bélanger

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

L'hon. Gauthier

1610

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

L'hon. Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

L'hon. Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Joan Fraser

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

L'hon. Gauthier

1615

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Gérard Binet

1620

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.))

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Joan Fraser

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1625

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1630

The Joint Chair (Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Hon. Gauthier

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

L'hon. Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

L'hon. Fraser

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Raymond Setlakwe (Les Laurentides, Lib.)

1635

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

1640

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mme Thibeault

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Viola Léger

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

1645

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Gérald Beaudoin

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Hon. Gauthier

1650

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

The Hon. Shirley Maheu

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)

CANADA

Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 026

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.)): Ladies, gentlemen, since we have a quorum, we will call this meeting to order, the first meeting of the year 2002. First of all, I'm hoping that all the members of the committee will do some excellent work in this new year.

In a few moments, I will be hearing a question of privilege from senator Gauthier, but before then, I would like us to come to an agreement as to how today's meeting should proceed. We have received three notices of motion: the first notice is from Mr. Herron, the second from Mr. Sauvageau and the third from Mr. Binet. The first notice of motion deals with a matter arising from a New Brunswick decision, the second pertains to the business of the committee and the third deals with the participation of the Official Languages Commissioner.

We will then meet in camera to begin reviewing an eventual report on the Air Canada issue.

So that is how we will be proceeding today. If you are in agreement, I should point out that we may be hobbling along a bit for the first two months because the calendars of the House and the Senate are, if I can say this, “out of sync”. Essentially, we will be sitting only three or four weeks out of the two months in February and March. So we will do our best. This is just the way things have worked out.

Senator Gauthier, I've received your question of privilege. The floor is yours.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ontario, Lib.): Mister Chairman, my question of privilege is simple. I think that you will be able to resolve it quite quickly.

Today I received the proceedings for the last committee meeting dated October, 3. At this meeting, Mr. Sauvageau, member of Parliament, made some comments pertaining to Bill S-32 and he alluded to the debate in the Senate

This took place on October 22, the day of my birthday. It was five o'clock and I had to leave for reasons that you can appreciate: my staff had decided to throw a small party for me. I did not know what was going to be debated at the committee. Consequently, I went to the party.

I read the proceedings today. Mr. Sauvageau made some relatively serious comments about what I had said regarding the effectiveness of the Joint Official Languages Committee. He sent me his letter and I made copies. You received this letter officially and you commented that you had received his letter. I would imagine that this letter was distributed.

I immediately drafted my response after receiving Mr. Sauvageau's letter and I believe I sent it to him the following morning. I do not know what time it was, by I spent part of the evening, the day of my birthday, drafting a letter. It was great fun; I really appreciated that.

I would like my letter to be distributed and, if possible, received officially, as you said.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Done. If this was not done, senator Gauthier, it was an oversight, it was forgotten inadvertently. As far as I know, your letter was circulated and we will circulate it once again. We deemed it to have been received officially and this will be noted in the minutes of today's meeting.

Is that all right?

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have copies and I can provide you with some.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We will circulate them.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I photocopied the letter and, if anybody else would like a copy, I have the letter. Imagine that, it has even been translated into English.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Fine, it has been resolved. There is no problem. We have received your letter and it will be circulated. I would like this matter to be noted in the minutes of today's meeting.

Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Herron, would you like to present your notice of motion?

Mr. John Herron (Fundy--Royal, PC/DR): I intend to present a motion on a very important issue for my province of New Brunswick. The intent of my motion is based on a precedent that was established in 1984 in Manitoba.

[English]

A recent court ruling in the province of New Brunswick called on municipalities to translate their municipal bylaws into both our official languages. Obviously this is an issue that would be taken seriously by all Canadians, but more importantly in my home province of New Brunswick, which is the only officially bilingual province.

The Government of New Brunswick, I believe courageously, accepted the ruling made by the court. Fifty municipalities are required to translate their municipal bylaws. The other municipalities will likely opt in to the process as well.

In 1984 the Government of Canada--the Turner government, I believe--initiated a process where they indicated they would pay at least 50% of the cost to translate the provincial laws in that particular legislature, and the Mulroney government honoured that commitment. The Commissioner of Official Languages has said it's a requirement that the federal government encourage and assist provincial governments to offer provincial and municipal services in both French and English. I'm quoting from paragraph 43(1)(d) of part VII of the Official Languages Act.

I must say, though, that it was not my intent to move this motion earlier, because I was heartened by the comments of the Minister of Heritage where she sent a signal that she would participate in the cost. But I think in the spirit of that goodwill it would be a positive initiative that this committee send a signal that we support the initiative of the Province of New Brunswick and the Minister of Heritage.

The motion I ask you to vote on has been circulated to the committee. I will read only the fourth section of the motion.

The first part says that whereas the court of appeal has made a ruling that 50 municipalities have to translate...building from the precedent we had in 1984 and the comments of the Official Languages Commissioner and the Official Languages Act.

The motion I have before you is:

Be it resolved that the Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages calls upon the federal government to make a reasonable financial contribution to assist the province of New Brunswick in the court-ordered translation of its municipal bylaws, drawing upon the precedent it set in sharing half the cost of the court-ordered bylaw translation for Manitoba in 1984.

Although the figures are not in, Mr. Chair--the Province of New Brunswick has not formally submitted a request--the cost is estimated, and I repeat, estimated, to be in the neighbourhood of one million dollars.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

¹ (1540)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The motion has been made by Mr. Herron. Are there comments and questions?

[Translation]

Senator Joan Fraser (De Lorimier, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

I would actually like to support this motion. In the original form in which it was circulated I would have opposed it, because it was going to suggest holding hearings in a timetable that, as you have just pointed out, is going to be very tight anyway, and because I suspected we would all rapidly come to the same conclusion with or without hearings. I would support the motion in the form in which Mr. Herron has now put it.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Gauthier, the floor is yours.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, there are all kinds of precedents, and I would like to make a brief comment on this issue. There have been precedents set in the Northwest Territories and in Manitoba, and there will probably be some in Ontario in short order because of the Contraventions Act.

The Premier of New Brunswick, Mr. Lord, has told municipalities that they had to translate that within a year. The municipalities have one year to do that. I therefore understand his position. I fully support the concept that the federal government should provide financial assistance to New Brunswick so that it can implement this ruling because it is both fair and equitable. Finally, it is up to the federal government to decide, but I am one of those people who believes that we do have the tools to have two official languages, linguistic duality. True, there is a cost associated with this, but it is worth it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orleans, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I completely agree with Mr. Herron. However, I would like to know if there is a precedent, if we do have to pay for half the cost and all of that. The third paragraph reads: “Whereas the precedent for the federal government paying for half the cost of the translation was set in 1984 when 50% of Manitoba's translation costs were covered...”. We could start wondering whether this really is a precedent. We should not launch into a debate on the matter and then be forced to add perhaps...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The motion has only one paragraph in English and one in French. Let's agree to that.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The whereases are...

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): May I? I spoke with a member from New Brunswick yesterday. I indicated that his original paper that is circulated did not have “Be it moved that” or “Be it resolved that”. If you wanted the committee to address it, it would be appropriate to bring forward a “Be it resolved that”, which he has now done. Hopefully, we'll accept that this is what he wishes to move. That's what he's moved and it is now on the table. It is the one page that says, “Be it resolved that the Joint Standing Committee...”

[Translation]

and the paragraph in French follows. This is a motion that is now before us. The other document has been set aside.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That clarifies everything.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Reid.

¹ (1545)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Now...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Pardon me, I thought that you had finished.

[English]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Non; c'est que cela a été changé tout à coup.

If you leave in the phrase “drawing upon the precedent it set in sharing half the cost of the court-ordered bylaw translation for Manitoba”, I believe you open the debate on another topic--a question of precedent or not.

In the debate you will get people like Senator Gauthier who will say yes, and there are many more cases, maybe you can bring four more cases. And you'll get a constitutionalist like Senator Beaudoin who'll say there are many more, and he'll go back to 1867. And you'll get another guy who'll go back to Samuel de Champlain.

So your resolution is so good, but why not keep it clean and short and just drop that “because my neighbour got this, I want that”. That could be part of the argument, should there be a problem with this.

Mr. John Herron: I have a friendly suggestion in that regard. He's worried about the word “precedent”. I see no harm in using the words “drawing upon the decision”.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If we are turned down, we can come back and say there was precedence.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It's a member's motion. Does he wish to take this as a friendly amendment or not?

That's your decision, sir.

Mr. John Herron: I'm sensing there's an immense amount of good will amongst the committee members already right now. I'm amenable to accepting a friendly amendment. I don't think it does anything different from what I was proposing in the first place.

So if that would be the will of the committee, that's fine by me.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So what would your friendly amendment be?

Mr. John Herron: So the motion before us would now read:

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark--Carleton, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would speak against this motion and I would do so for three reasons. The first is that there has been some talk of the court having imposed a solution upon the province. That is not so. The province made a decision not to appeal a decision from a court that was not the final Court of Appeal. That's the first point to take into account. I think for representations to be made on the basis that the province had something imposed upon it is simply not in keeping with the facts.

Secondly, the formula the province is now seeking to put in place, that laws must be translated where 20% of the local population or, I believe, 1,500 individuals, speaks the minority language is one that the province has in fact imposed upon itself. This was not imposed by the court. I'm not saying it's a bad formula. I actually think it has many merits, and in fact there's some similarity to a formula that I myself proposed in a book I wrote on the subject. But I do think it's important.

If I may, I'll quote from the decision itself. I'm quoting here from section 127. The quote is quite specific. It says:

...this Court would be loathe to interfere with and impose standards on the legislature. It is obvious that the government has a choice in the institutional means by which its obligations can be met.

And then it continues on later on in the section to read:

...the principle of equality of official languages might be to implement a language policy whereby municipal services would be available in both official languages only where numbers warrant. This is a quantitative approach in which certain municipalities might be declared bilingual on the basis of a percentage of the population representing an official language minority. The percentage would have to be determined by the legislature.

Now, something of that nature has occurred, but the point is, this is the legislature making a decision to impose a condition upon itself. And I'm not sure, as it does so, within its sovereign ability to do so, why that should be something that would then involve a financial contribution from the Government of Canada. And this is particularly important when we remember that the relevant section of the Constitution that was discussed in the Moncton versus Charlebois decision was a section of the Constitution that relates exclusively to New Brunswick, which was put in there at the request of the Government of New Brunswick. It is in practice a part of the constitution of the Province of New Brunswick as a sovereign entity and not in fact in any meaningful sense a part of the Constitution of Canada, notwithstanding its inclusion in the body of the Constitution of Canada.

I say all this to stress the point that we are a federation. Each of our provinces is sovereign within its own area of jurisdiction and it ought to exercise sovereignty including the costs of that sovereignty. Therefore I would speak against any financial contribution from Ottawa.

¹ (1550)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Madam Bulte.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale--High Park, Lib.): Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I was going to raise another point, but perhaps I could directly speak to what Mr. Reid has said. Again through you, Mr. Chair, I need some clarification.

I have not read the decision. Unfortunately, I haven't had an opportunity to read it, and would like to have a copy. But am I correct, from what Mr. Reid is saying, that the decision of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal did not hold the bylaw unconstitutional? And if that is the case, then is what Mr. Herron is saying in this first paragraph incorrect? Albeit it's your draft, I know, but I'm just trying to understand.

And secondly, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman and the honourable member, governments choose not to appeal decisions for very important reasons--for instance, when they know there's no point in appealing a decision because their constitutional experts have said it's not going to be changed at the Supreme Court of Canada. We don't have to have a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada to make it a law of a province or even in this country.

As a practising lawyer for 18 years, there would be many cases when I was presenting a brief where I would look at the various provinces to see what was the law in Canada. That's the law in Canada, be it New Brunswick, be it British Columbia, or be it elsewhere. So I take issue with the premise of what Mr. Reid is saying. But I would be very interested to see if in fact what Mr. Reid is saying is that Mr. Herron is incorrect. And again I apologize, Mr. Chair and Madam Chair, that I have not read the decision.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): On the matter of the decision, I would ask that our clerk send to each member of the committee either a copy of the decision or the reference to obtain it on the Internet or the particular website. That's number one.

Two, on the particular question that Mr. Herron raised, he will have the right to conclude the debate on this. So I'll leave it to him to answer whatever questions he wishes to address.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I got carried away in my response to the direct question.

The other question I have is that Mr. Herron did say something about the Minister of Canadian Heritage indicating.... I'm not privy.... I'm just wondering, Mr. Chair, if the minister has indicated, perhaps before making the motion.... It may be something that's already...unless you're privy, Mr. Chair and Madam Chair, to something that I'm not.

I'm just saying this may not be necessary if it's already.... I don't know what the department has said, and I'd be happy to find out. I don't know if I can find out right away, but....

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Herron may be referring to are comments the Minister of Canadian Heritage may have made, as I've read, reported in the media, that she seems favourable to this, upon receipt of a request. But that doesn't detract that it may also be the will of this committee to encourage the government to do so. So one does not preclude the other.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm sorry. I want to make it clear that I'm fully supportive of this motion, but you must understand I'm here also in the role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. If we can reach a consensus without motions--

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Well, it may be the wish of this committee to have motions on the record; we will let the committee decide, with all due respect.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay, sorry.

Could we maybe then use the word “encourage” the government--instead of “calls upon”, use “encourage?”

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I think we shouldn't get too sensitive about words, but if you wish to propose an amendment, you may do so.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'm just asking for the committee's direction; I'm not imposing my will on it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you have an amendment you wish to propose?

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Not right at this moment.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: I'll listen to these guys.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godin, followed by Senator Gauthier.

¹ (1555)

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the MP for submitting this motion to the committee. I think that this will send a signal to the other provinces, namely, that we must not be afraid to acknowledge our two official languages in this country.

While the federal government recognizes the two official languages, there are some provinces that may not have the means to do this. However, with help from our parents... we are like a family with all the children. If the parents want to help the family, perhaps we will have less trouble with our official languages.

For these reasons, I think that we have to ask the federal government to participate and to help when a province has made a request so that we can finally try to put an end to this problem that has persisted for years, hundreds of years. Do we in Canada accept the two official languages? This is a good opportunity for the federal government to show that, if a province makes a decision, it is there to help it, as it did in Manitoba and as it has done elsewhere. I think that this is a wonderful gesture and that it would be a wonderful gesture on the part of our committee to take a position on this issue immediately.

I truly support this motion and I would like a decision to be made immediately, if possible.

Some honorable members: Bravo!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We said that we would allow the senator to speak. The floor is yours, Senator, and then Mr. Herron can conclude.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: New Brunswick is the only province in Canada that is bilingual through the Constitution. Subsections 16(1), (2) and (3) apply to New Brunswick.

The court ruled that municipalities were obliged to process traffic tickets in both official languages, that the charge reports had to be provided in both official languages. This is the law of the federal government and the law of New Brunswick. Mr. Reid said that there were three reasons; we heard about one: where numbers warrant. If he wants to annoy me, let him talk about that. We are not counting days, we are not counting the number of blind people, Mr. Reid. We are not counting the number of disabled people either.

So forget about this 20% and the 1,500. This is a decision pertaining to the province's regulation, a suggestion that was made to the province by the Acadian community and a decision made by New Brunswick to use 20% or 1,500. This is not about where numbers warrant. This has nothing to do with that.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Senator Gauthier.

Senator Gérald A. Beaudoin (Rigaud, PC): It is because he talked about obligations for New Brunswick and the provinces, but this is true even for Canada. Section 16 is in the Constitution.

That is all that I have to say.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Herron.

Mr. John Herron: I sat in caucus with this man for five years, and that's the briefest comment I've ever seen him make.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. John Herron: But it's stimulating and intellectually motivating as it's put.

Mr. Chair, I'm heartened by the good will that I see. There's emerging consensus around the committee. This is really one of these “right things to do.” I'm heartened by the Minister of Heritage's comments that this is the direction where she's leaning anyway. I think it shows that this committee counts that you want to send that level of encouragement, or call upon the minister to go in this direction.

I'd like to call for a vote, Mr. Chair.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): There's no need to, Mr. Herron. I'll do that, if you don't mind.

Mr. John Herron: Can we have a recorded vote, sir?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I think you just got your recorded vote; there was one against.

Mr. John Herron: From a Hansard perspective.

[Translation]

(The motion is carried, 11 to 1)

Before we move on to the next motion, I would like to seek the guidance of the committee. Ms. Maheu and I can send a letter tomorrow, on behalf of the committee, to the government, or, if you prefer, we could table a report in both the Senate and the House on this issue two days later. It is up to you to decide and tell us what you would like us to do.

Mr. Sauvageau.

º (1600)

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I move that a letter be sent. That would be simpler.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like the matter to be decided by Parliament. I would like Parliament to be aware of our decision.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Can I ask for a straw vote here, on whether we want a very short, one-page report, which we could probably swing by Thursday of this week, tabled in both the Senate and the House, or a letter?

[Translation]

I would like to know who prefers to send a report.

[English]

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): So it's a report, we're agreed. Thank you.

[Translation]

We will now move to Mr. Sauvageau's motion.

[English]

Mr. Scott Reid: Sorry, I have a question. Just because it's going in the form of a report--

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We can't have a dissenting opinion?

Mr. Scott Reid: Well, I'm just wondering, is that actually what's going to wind up happening, or...?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If you want to have it attached, fine. I would suggest no more than half a page, because otherwise it will be more than one page.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: First of all, I must apologize; I too amended my motion to make it, I hope, more acceptabIe to you. Please take it. If I may, I will tell you what I struck out. I hardly added anything.

I will leave the first “given” there: “Given the importance that the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages places on official language minority communities;”.

I will leave the second “given” there: “Given the imminence of the tabling of an action plan for these communities by the minister responsible for coordinating official languages issues;”. That is no secret.

I will take out the three following “givens” which have political undertones and may be argued, namely the “lack of information on the consultations”, the “lack of consultation” as well as the “comments made by Minister Dion”. I am prepared to remove all three.

I would add “Given the will of this committee to consult the official-language minority communities”, and the motion remains the same:

That the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, recognizing the urgent need for prompt action, give priority to this matter by putting off for a few weeks its study of Part VII of the Official Languages Act and that consultation with the communities as to the desired and anticipated content of the action plan be commenced as soon as possible.

If I may, now that I have corrected and amended... I didn't have any English copies to give to everyone. This is why, unfortunately, you don't have any.

I do not want to postpone the study of Part VII of the Official Languages Act for too long, but since an action plan is to be tabled imminently, I do believe that the committee should be hearing from the main representatives of the official-language minority communities, both francophone and anglophone, so that we can find out what they want to see included in the action plan that the minister will be tabling soon.

I think that a few meetings will enable us to have a clear idea about what they would like to see in this report. So we will need perhaps two, three or four meetings; we will see. Once this has been done, we can go back to the study of Part V of the Official Languages Act. That is the intent of my motion.

º (1605)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I have a question, Mr. Sauvageau. If I understood correctly, this would happen right after we have completed the report on Air Canada, right?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you very much for the clarification. That's right. We study Air Canada and table a report. I do not want to postpone tabling of the report on Air Canada. I would simply like to postpone the work we have done on Part VII of the Official Languages Act.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Are there any questions or comments with respect to Mr. Sauvageau's motion?

Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Chairman, I would like to congratulate Mr. Sauvageau on his amended motion and tell him that I will be voting in favour of it. However, I will not be doing so today because there is no English version. Whenever this committee has the opportunity—and I believe that Mr. Benoît Sauvageau understands what I mean by “the opportunity”—it tells people from the government, and not just individuals, but leaders, representatives from the various departments and certainly the members of Parliament, that if something is submitted in writing, it has to be done in both languages.

Therefore, I'm requesting, Mr. Chairman, that we postpone this matter until such time as we could have... If you can do this before the end of the meeting...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Bellemare, we have the original version of Mr. Sauvageau's motion in both languages. He is striking out three of the five “attendu que” in his resolution. In English, this is “given”. He's keeping the first two sentences that begin with “given”, but he has struck out the third, fourth and fifth “given”, and he has added a short little sentence that states:

[English]

given the will of this committee to consult the official language communities, be it resolved that....

[Translation]

I think that we have enough documents in both languages to be able to proceed.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I just found the page. Mr. Sauvageau has misled us. He just told us that he did not have the English version. I therefore concluded—

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): He was talking about the amended version.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I didn't make any copies of the amended English version.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger: Mr. Bellemare, your comment is, however, very appropriate. Had the motion not been submitted in both languages, it would not have been distributed and it would not have been given consideration right now. On that point, you are right.

Mr. Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to congratulate the clerk because, when he distributes a document, he always does so in both official languages. This has been occurring for 30 years. I received this from the clerk and right away I noticed that it was in both official languages.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Congratulations.

The Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier: He may be a Senate clerk.

Voices:Oh, oh!

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I say something?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Certainly. Go ahead.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: We have an agenda and procedure committee, what we call a steering committee in English. Has the committee already chosen a date for the study of Part VII of the law? When is this supposed to begin!

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): This study is supposed to commence immediately after the conclusion of our report on Air Canada. We would insert it between the two.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: All we have to do is follow the program set out by the steering committee and change our plan. We need a motion from the committee.

º (1610)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We can still accept a motion.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: But the committee had clearly approved the study of Part VII.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I understand that, Mr. Senator, but the plenary committee is sovereign. The steering committee had decided that after Air Canada it would deal with Part VII, department by department. But the committee is independent and can dictate what is the steering committee does, which is what occurring now. It is on the agenda.

We will move on to Mr. Beaudoin, followed by Ms. Fraser.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: My question is one of information. You spoke of urgency, action, priority, and you ask that the study be postponed. Is that essential?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): What study do you mean?

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: The English text says: “for a few weeks its study of Part VII...”.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I do not want to be the champion of Mr. Sauvageau's proposal. I just want to share it with others, if I can.

Mr. Dion is preparing an action plan on the implementation of the Official Languages Act and of linguistic duality which he plans to table in March or April. He came to tell us that. According to Mr. Sauvageau, that is what prompted the urgency to invite communities to tell us what they want so that we can then report to Mr. Dion.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: When he unveils his plan. Is that correct?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It will be before he unveils it so that he can include that, if possible.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: It is because their wishes are as yet unknown. Is that correct?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): At this time, we do not know what they are.

Are there any other questions or comments?

I'm sorry, Mrs. Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the concerns expressed today, but I still have some reservations. I think the idea of coming up with an action plan ourselves within a few weeks is somewhat dangerous because it is complicated.

I realize that is not exactly what is being asked of us, but in fact that's what will end up happening. We will hold a few hearings in a hurry to catch the minister before he goes ahead. I think we may miss some target groups because we do not have enough time to hear all those we should hear.

Perhaps I do not sound very logical, but I am firmly convinced that we risk making mistakes by doing a study a little too quickly. I share the interest and major concern for this action plan, but I am not sure this is how we should deal with it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): To close the discussion, we will move on to Senator Léger.

Senator Viola Léger (New Brunswick, Lib.): If I understood correctly, Mr. Dion must prepare an action plan and we would have to rush to do certain things before he does so. I do not understand. We do not even know what he will say. It seems to me it would be a waste of our time to tell him to not forget this thing or that. It seems to me we should wait until he speaks and discuss his statements afterwards.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator Gauthier, followed by Mr. Sauvageau.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, last year, about 10 months ago, Mr. Dion came to meet the members of this committee.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In September.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In September?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes, the first day back.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: He promised this committee an action plan. I therefore think it is perfectly reasonable to ask Mr. Dion to table his action plan before this committee before making it public. We may or may not be able to get a copy of it.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Minister Dion has already been invited to do so.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In the end, what I suggest is that we send a short letter to Mr. Dion inviting him to table his plan as soon as possible here, before the Official Languages Committee.

º (1615)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Senator, I am doing what I can to make sure you receive an answer. Both joint chairs have already invited Minister Dion to present his action plan to the committee as soon as it is finished. Indeed, I think the minister indicated he intended to do so, but that still needs to be confirmed.

But that is not the issue we are here to debate. The issue at hand is whether we want to become the mouthpiece of certain minority-language communities. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the gist of the resolution.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In answer to the questions which were raised, I would say that this situation reminds me of the pre-budget consultations. Before tabling his budget, the Minister of Finance takes the time to consult people in order to find out what they would like to see in the budget. But, ultimately, it is the Minister of Finance who decides what goes into his budget.

We would like to hold consultations similar to the pre-budget consultations for Minister Dion, who told us he would produce an action plan; in other words, what is contained in the budget.

But we may not have enough time. Just think of everything the steering committee still needs to decide, including issues surrounding Air Canada, Part VII, the entire Official Languages Act and more. There is plenty to do. If we had enough time, we could do all kinds of study on all kinds of subjects.

Do we have to exclude certain groups from appearing because we don't have enough time? I don't think so. If we don't have enough time to hear from everyone, does that mean we can ignore 35% of them? I don't think so either.

We still have some time left; let us give the opportunity to certain groups to tell Mr. Dion, through our committee, what they would like to see included in the action plan, what specific measures they would like to have in such and such an area, how they wish to see the law applied in another area. The committee wants to hear from minority groups so that their opinions may hopefully be reflected in the final version of Mr. Dion's action plan.

Otherwise, Mr. Dion would present the action plan and only then would francophone communities tell us what they think about it. But it would already be too late, since the action plan would already have been tabled. If that happens, there would be nothing left to say; we would have no choice but to accept it. That's how it works.

That's why I would like to hear from people beforehand. If we manage to change two or three pages, perhaps the conclusion, if the action plan can be improved through our participation, we would address one of Senator Gauthier's wishes, which is to make the committee more relevant and efficient. And we would also respect the communities' right to be heard. These communities have representatives, be they in Quebec or throughout Canada. It is easy to identify the main groups.

Of course, we will not have the pleasure of hearing from, for instance, the Association de théâtre francophone de l'Alberta, unfortunately, because of the lack of time. Clearly, this organization would have relevant things to say, as well. But are we going to prevent the FCFA and Alliance Quebec from being heard because of a lack of time to hear from those groups as well?

I feel that we can solve the problem of a lack of time that way and at least have an impact on Mr. Dion's action plan. It is incumbent on us to do so.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Let us now proceed with the vote.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to say to Mr. Sauvageau that these groups have been coming before the committee for years to tell us what they want. We produce reports but nothing changes. Even Mr. Dion acknowledged as much. Why did he say that? Because the Prime Minister appointed him to coordinate actions in court.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The debate is over.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: In fact, that would be putting the cart in front of the horse...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We have debated the resolution. If you don't mind, I will call for a vote on Mr. Sauvageau's resolution, which reads as follows:

Given the importance that the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages places on official language minority communities;

Given the imminence of the tabling of an action plan for these communities by the minister responsible for coordinating official languages issues;

That the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, recognizing the urgent need for prompt action, give priority to this matter by putting off for a few weeks its study of Part VII of the Official Languages Act, and that consultation with the communities as to the desire and anticipated content of the action plan be commenced as soon as possible.

(Motion agreed to)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): For those who are interested in doing so, please send me, by the end of the week, the names of groups you feel we should meet. Let's not exaggerate. Let's invite the main groups so that we can, if possible, meet everyone in the course of one or two meetings. We'll do it fairly quickly and then we will simply have to...

Let's move on to the third resolution.

Mr. Binet.

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac--Mégantic, Lib.): My motion...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Could you read and explain it?

Mr. Gérard Binet: All right.

As members of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, whose particular mandate is to keep a close watch on the evolution of Canada's official languages policies as a whole, I believe that to carry out this mandate and do our work well the committee must benefit to the greatest extent possible from the expertise of the Commissioner of Official Languages. This won't cost $500,000.

This being so, I move that:

The Commissioner of Official Languages, or any one she may delegate, be present at the committee's meetings in order to answer questions from committee members when a witness appears.

Of course, Ms. Adam will not always be able to attend, but I am sure that she will be able to send a competent delegate in her stead.

º (1620)

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will ask Ms. Shirley Maheu to take the chair because I would also like to speak to that issue, and I would like to do so before the Senator, if possible.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu (Rougemont, Lib.)): Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa--Vanier, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

This would translate into realities than we had already agreed on, which is to build a closer relationship between the committee and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. In so doing, we would take advantage of the presence of this person, who is basically an agent of Parliament, without this person becoming a committee member, of course, because that would be inappropriate. This person would not become a committee member—I am in full support of this resolution—but the mere presence of this person at the committee, be at the commissioner or a delegate, and this has already happened once or twice, would help in answering questions after witnesses have spoken. This will help us in our job. That is why the resolution is before us; it would help us reinforce something which is already there. At least I hope this is how the resolution will be received. That's all I had to say.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Joan Fraser.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I know that the office of the commissioner is almost always represented by the public during our hearings, but I feel we are asking for a lot by demanding an immediate formal answer on behalf of the office of the commissioner in response to a statement made by a witness, and that this would become part of the record. This is asking for a lot of the commissioner or a representative, in my view.

I think it would be better for the commissioner to make suggestions, observations or comments through a representative after a hearing is held and if it is warranted. She could speak directly to the joint chairs of the committee. Once we have completed a study on a given subject, be it Air Canada or Part VII of the Official Languages Act, the commissioner could make a formal appearance before the committee. But I think it is outside of normal procedure for this to happen on a regular basis. And I'm not sure it would yield the expected results.

I would prefer that she contact you immediately after hearings are held. That would give us time to think about the implications of the testimony.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Thank you.

Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I do not want to reinvent the wheel, but let me tell you something. Years ago, the Official Languages Commissioner sat in on our meetings: not after a meeting, but during the meeting.

I would like to amend the proposal by substituting the word “suite” by the word “durant”. Let me tell you why. The Public accounts are reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee. The Auditor General of Canada is always present or there is someone in his stead. He is there to help the members—there are no senators on that committee—question witnesses.

When Treasury Board came before this committee, I asked the representative if there was an agreement between Treasury Board and... [Editor's note: inaudible] We were told there was none. But I knew there was: the commissioner had said so in her report. I did not want to put the witness on the spot and tell him that he was wrong, but I am convinced that a committee can only do its job if committee members can count on the presence of the Official Languages Commissioner during hearings to ask questions of witnesses and clarify issues on extremely important subjects. The Auditor General does so; Ms. Adam is the auditor general of languages. It's the same thing.

So, we are not creating a precedent. We're not inventing anything. We would simply be doing what Parliament has been doing for years.

º (1625)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Benoît Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I asked for my name to be put on the list, but then I withdrew my name because I thought things would have gone smoothly. That's why I asked for my name to be put on the list again.

I completely agree with what Senator Gauthier said. I feel it would simply help us with our work. I would not support the proposal if everyone knew the Official Languages Act inside out, as well as every ruling handed down by the Supreme Court. If everyone on this committee was an expert, we would not need the language commissioner, but since I don't feel I'm an expert, especially in the area of official languages, I feel I need her to be present.

To address what Ms. Fraser said, let's say a witness said certain things and we ask questions which were beside the point, but there was no one there to set us straight. We would end up waisting one, two or even three meetings. The commissioner would only let us know in writing the following week that the witness really meant something else.

I feel things should be set straight immediately after a meeting. Of course, the Commissioner need to be at the table asking questions like committee members, but just having a resource person at meetings, as is the case with the Public Accounts Committee, of which I have also been a member, seems to me to be a good way of working more effectively and efficiently.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The members sitting at this table have parliamentary duties. We have political responsibilities and we must also help the Canadians living in our ridings. I feel we should be able to ask the Official Languages Commissioner questions at any time. She is responsible for investigating situations and we can ask her questions in that regard. But I would not want the committee to bring someone on board to do our job. I can't support such an idea. I would not want us to invite someone to do our job as members of Parliament, no matter how much I respect that person. If we err, the Commissioner will point us back in the right direction. If I understood what Mr. Bélanger is proposing, she would be present at meetings and ask questions. This is also what Mr. Sauvageau proposed. At least, that's what I understood.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We also have the right to ask her questions.

A voice:We are the ones who should be asking questions, not her.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I want to make sure that is understood. I wouldn't want someone else to be sitting at the table doing our job. We are the ones who are responsible for our work.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would like us to discuss the same motion. I'm jumping in here because it's important. I want us to discuss the same motion so that everyone is clear on the details. I agree with Yvon, Yvon disagrees with me, but we both agree on the same thing. Could you please tell us exactly what motion is being debated so that other committee members may speak to the correct one.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): We worked together on this issue. The resolution clearly proposes that the commissioner or her delegate be present at committee hearings so that she may answer any questions following something a witness has said. Now, if we are to ask questions of the commissioner or her delegate, perhaps she will have to join us at the table so we can question her, and so that she can speak into a microphone so everyone can hear her. She is not a member of the committee. She would not have the right to vote or any other right. She would simply be a resource person.

We simply want the commissioner, or her delegate, to work more closely with us because she is an agent of Parliament. As Senator Gauthier said, we should avail ourselves of her services as does the Public Accounts Committee with regard to the Auditor General. That's all it is.

º (1630)

The Joint Chair (Shirley Maheu): Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I feel the translation is incorrect. I've just found an error. In French, it says: “ suite à la comparution”. In English, it says: “when a witness appears”. Perhaps it should say “following” in English. So, it's not right. I did not ask for the commissioner to sit side-by-side with members and senators. She would sit at the witness table.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Very well. Senator Beaudoin.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I have a problem from a legal point of view. The Official Languages Commissioner is accountable to Parliament. She's not a member of a committee. She can help us. I do not object to her being present at our meetings. I do not object to her quietly advising Mr. X, Y or Z to ask a more informed question than the one he just asked.

I have no problem with that. But you are changing things. We are a parliamentary committee. We are the only ones who have the right to ask questions. That's clear. Anyone can come here to listen. Anyone can come here and say that if they were a senator, they would ask this or that question. I don't object to that. But, as worded, the resolution says: be present at the committee's meetings, but could we say: “in order to answer questions by members”? Answer to whom? To the experts?

Voices:To questions raised by committee members.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Questions of elected representatives.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Members and senators, it doesn't matter, but...

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): In answer to questions of senators and members.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: You want this person to answer questions asked by the committee? Is that correct?

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, Senator.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I'm reading the wording in a straightforward manner.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Well, the wording may leave something to be desired.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Yes, it does leave much to be desired. Listen, we would be very pleased at having the Official Languages Commissioner here because she would of great help. We would be very pleased if she were represented here and I have no objection to that. What I don't understand is that she could, at a certain time, orient the debate and tell me to ask a certain question. That's what's bothering me.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, Mr. Beaudoin...

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: Let's say someone asks a question and that the Official Languages Commissioner says that the question doesn't makes sense. What is she doing? Please answer the question.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): As for me, I would like to...

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu)): Joan Fraser.

Gérald, please wait a minute.

Senator Joan Fraser: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Up until now, I have been focused on the dynamics of our relationship with the Commissioner and her office, but there's also the issue of the dynamics between the committee and witnesses. It would be like an inquisition for the witnesses. They represent themselves and that's all very well. They will tell us what they have to say and then they will leave, and then we will call in the commissioner and ask her what she thinks about the witnesses' testimony. Did the witness tell the truth? Did the witness say something relevant? I feel that is not how we are going to gain the trust of our witnesses. And I am not only referring to ministers. In the case of ministers, that kind of system would be very problematic, but it would not be less so in the case of regular witnesses. If a witness knows that as soon as they're done, the big expert, the commissioner, will be called in... The commissioner knows how much I respect her work. That's not the issue. I'm just worried about the dynamics involved in that type of situation.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Setlakwe.

Senator Raymond Setlakwe (Les Laurentides, Lib.): I understand where Senator Fraser is coming from, but this motion basically says that we would be in a position to regularly access the expertise of the Official Languages Commissioner to ask questions and clarify certain issues, but it would not be to illicit a contradictory opinion or to validate something a witness has said. I may be mistaken, but that's how I read the resolution. Maybe you are reading too much into it and maybe I am just taking it at face value.

º (1635)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madam Joint Chair, Senator Gauthier said that at the Public Accounts Committee, the Auditor General or his representatives was always present, as were some deputy ministers, and that these people sat at the witness table. Regardless of which side of the table we were sitting at, we never felt inferior. The fact that the Auditor General was present did not give us an inferiority complex. I corrected him a few times, and he changed some of his reports as a result.

If we do our job, we really can know as much if not more as the experts on certain details. The commissioner or her representative can certainly sit at the witness table. We do not need to ask her, because that gives me somewhat of an inferiority complex, to sit near the washroom or inside the telephone booth. That makes no sense. She is present here as a witness. A number of witnesses come to various committees. Not all witnesses speak. Generally, one witness speaks, and there are one or two witnesses who provide certain additional details.

Let's say we are hearing the testimony of a particular group. The commissioner would be seated at the same table as the witnesses and if we want to ask her a question at some point, we will do so as though she were a witness, not a member of the committee.

Yes, she should be here, and she should sit at the witness table. The clerk is not seated at the back with the person who looks after the microphones. He is not seated close to the washroom or in the telephone booth. He sits at the table. In my view, the people sitting at the back are observers, or people who sometimes tap us on the shoulder and pass us a little note.

I do not think that the Commissioner of Official Languages is at the point where she is? seen as someone who passes us notes making suggestions during the meeting. The commissioner must really be part of the group of witnesses at this table.

Thank you.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Gauthier.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Bellemare went to the right school. I chaired the Public Accounts Committee. The presence of a deputy minister or the Auditor General of Canada kept witnesses honest and alert; it did not do more than that.

All I want is to amend the motion to get rid of the idea of a consultation after the meeting. We must do the opposite: we must consult Ms. Adam during the meeting. That is what we need here.

To respond to what Ms. Fraser said, I would say that if we were a legislative committee, I would understand her argument. That is a matter of concern to members of Parliament only. However, our joint committee and the Public Accounts Committee are administrative committees. We must understand the difference between the two types of committee. As Mr. Bellemare and Mr. Sauvageau might say, we may not all be as well informed as we should be about administrative matters. We may look silly. In politics, it is best to know the answer before asking a question. If we do not know the answer, we will look ridiculous.

If the commissioner were present, she could ask the chair during the meeting or after the meeting.... In the past, this was always done after the meeting. After the members had asked their questions, the commissioner could be asked to comment on the testimony presented during the meeting. Why not?

The commissioner is a friend of the committee. The legal term for this is amicus curiae. That is latin, Senator. It sounds nice. Thus, the Commissioner of Official Languages is the committee's friend, who, after we have our say with the witness, could point out that a particular comment made by a senator or an MP was somewhat out of context. Why not? I would not be ashamed of that.

º (1640)

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have been listening with a great deal of interest to the comments for and against the resolution, but as Mr. Bélanger said at the beginning of his remarks, to all intents and purposes, we would simply be formalizing something that was formerly done here at the committee.

Consequently, I am wondering whether it is really advisable to have a motion, whether it might not be preferable to carry on as we did in the past. In this way, everyone would be sure to have the commissioner's full cooperation, which we have in any case.

I would therefore suggest quite simply that we maintain the status quo.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Léger.

Senator Viola Léger: I would like to make two points.

First of all, I see that the person in question is here. Is she not entitled to express her opinion? Could we not ask her to do so immediately? That would avoid a great deal of repetition. She definitely must have an opinion on all of this.

My second comment may be out of context. I will take the example of the SAANB. You invite its representatives to appear, and they come and say the same things that they have been saying for 25 or 30 years. They repeat them all here. Is that what you want? I do not really understand. That is all.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Bélanger.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I certainly would not want to embarrass the commissioner today. If the committee prefers to postpone this discussion until later, that is fine. Our intention is totally honourable. We are trying to formalize a past practice of the committee and incorporate it into our proceedings.

I remember a meeting where we heard from a departmental official. We had invited the commissioner to come, and following the testimony, during the meeting, we asked the commissioner some questions. Some of us wanted to ask her some questions, and her presence was very helpful.

Mr. Binet put forward a motion, because the joint chairs cannot do so, and I would not want him to take the blame if this does not work. The sole intention of the motion was to formalize this practice. We would be telling the commissioner's office that we expect the commissioner or her representative to be present when we hear from witnesses and that she should prepare for the meeting accordingly. Thus, once the witness has made his or her presentation, if we have any questions, we could ask them of the commissioner or her representative, while the witness is still here, of course. I would not want this to be any other way. At that point, we would invite the commissioner or her representative to come to the witness table so that we can ask her some questions. The rest of the time, she would not be sitting at the table.

That is the substance of the motion you have before you. I see no harm in it at all. The idea is to try to strengthen the committee's ability to influence the government.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Mr. Godin, followed by Senator Beaudoin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Personally, I can support this, but I have a problem with the idea that she would be sitting at the table with us. We did hear that. We cannot say that this was not mentioned.

Mr. Bellemare suggested that she sit at the witness table throughout the whole meeting. I think she should be there only when we ask her to do so. We could add that she will answer committee members' questions “if necessary”. If this is not necessary, we will not ask her any questions. And we would not say “after the witness appears”, but “when the witness appears”. Finally, after the words “the members”, we should add “from the committee”. So the motion would read: “to answer questions from Committee members”.

If we were to do that, I would have no trouble supporting the motion.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will read the motion, if you don't mind:

That the Commissioner of Official Languages, or anyone whom she may delegate, be present at the Committee's meetings in order to answer questions from Committee members when a witness appears.

In English, it reads as follows:

º (1645)

[English]

The Commissioner of Official Languages, or anyone whom she may delegate, be present at the Committee's meetings in order to answer questions from Committee members if any after a witness appears.

[Translation]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): Senator Beaudoin has asked for the floor.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: I would agree to the following expression: “in order to answer committee members' questions”. That is very, very good. I want her to be present, and I have no problem with that, but I want to avoid a debate between the commissioner and the expert witnesses we have appearing at a committee meeting at which she is present to assist us. I would therefore vote in favour of the following wording: “in order to answer committee members' questions following the appearance of a witness.” However, it would be clear that once we had heard from the experts, we would invite the commissioner or her representative to answer all the questions. I don't want any battles between witnesses and the commissioner.

The commissioner's role is to report to Parliament and to the people of Canada. That is her role. She must be impartial, and so on. She does her job very well, but I want to avoid putting her into a position where there could be a battle between her and the expert witnesses. That is not constructive. I might accept the following words: “in order to answer committee members' questions following the appearance of a witness.” The idea, clearly, is to avoid any debates. It would not be helpful if the debate were to go on and on, but if, after the witnesses' appearance she were to answer some specific, intelligent questions, then, yes, she would be extremely helpful to us.

An hon. member: Do not make too many assumptions about our questions.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): It is up to the individual to judge that.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): There are two names left on the list, Benoît Sauvageau and Eugène Bellemare. Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to point out to Senator Gérald Beaudoin, the constitutional expert, that this is Parliament, and if there is one committee that is close to Parliament, it is certainly this one, because it is made up of both senators and members of Parliament.

When government officials have to report to Parliament, they never go into the House of Commons to shout their remarks, they come to a committee to report. We are Parliament.

You said that she was accountable to Parliament, as though we were not Parliament. We are Parliament, and this committee is the most representative of Parliament, because its members are from both Chambers.

So, I got you, Beaudoin!

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: What I am trying to do is avoid any conflict between experts. We bring in an expert whose job is to look after official languages matters. The objective is not to start a fight among experts. That would not be helpful to us. What would be helpful to us, however, is to have the commissioner here to point out some corrections to the experts. That is a very good idea.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I think we will move to the vote. The motion reads as follows:

That the Commissioner of Official Languages, or anyone whom she may delegate, be present at the Committee's meetings in order to answer questions from Committee members as required when a witness appears.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: “After” or “when”?

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): “After a witness appears.”

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I understand what you mean, but it would be during the meeting, not after it.

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: This is very confusing, I would like to see this in writing. Ms. Maheu said:

[English]

The commissioner or anyone she delegates to appear at the committee meeting to answer the questions from the committee members, if any, prior to or during the witness's appearance....

Je ne comprends plus.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): We corrected--

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: Everything I have seen had to do with Mr. Rivest's amendment. The commissioner is a friend ...

º (1650)

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): I'll read the English version:

The Commissioner of Official Languages, or anyone whom she may delegate, be present at the Committee's meetings in order to answer questions from Committee members if any when or after

--and I think it is “after”--

a witness appears.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I think we mean that if the commissioner speaks at the same time as the witness, we will not hear either of them. If the witness has finished speaking and she speaks afterward, there is a better chance we will hear what the two have to say. I think it is as simple as that. We are getting bogged down not just in details, but in really picky details. Enough is enough.

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): It is “after the witness appears”. Is that what you want? Après? Suite?

[Translation]

Senator Jean-Robert Gauthier: I would like to ask the clerk whether there is a motion we could use for inspiration? Give us something.

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu: You have it already.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I will read the motion in French, Madam Chair. Moved that:

The Commissioner of Official Languages, or anyone whom she may delegate, be present at the Committee's meeting in order to answer questions from Committee members if required after a witness appears.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin: That is perfect.

The Joint Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would request a vote, Madam Chair, because...

[English]

The Joint Chair (Senator Shirley Maheu): All right. May we have the vote, please.

(Motion agreed to: yeas, 6; nays, 4)

[Proceedings continue in camera]