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.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Official Languages
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 21, 2002
| À | 1005 |
 |
The Clerk of the Committee |
|
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Clerk |
| À | 1010 |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP) |
|
The Clerk |
|
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.) |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Clerk |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1015 |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ) |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Scott Reid |
| À | 1020 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Yolande Thibeault |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
| À | 1025 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvon Godin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Official Languages |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, November 21, 2002
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
À 
(1005)
[Translation]
The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members of the committee, I see that we have quorum. We can now proceed to the election of the chair and the vice-chairs.
[English]
Once the election of the chair and vice-chairs is completed, I will invite the newly elected chair to preside over the meeting.
Are there any nominations for chair?
[Translation]
Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): I nominate Mauril Bélanger.
[English]
The Clerk: Are there any other nominations? No?
Nominations are now closed.
[Translation]
The motion before the committee is as follows: «That Mr. Mauril Bélanger be elected chair of this committee.»
(Motion carried)
The Clerk: I therefore declare Mr. Mauril Bélanger duly elected chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
[English]
We can now proceed to the election of the vice-chair from the opposition side. Are there any nominations for the first vice-chair?
Mr. Reid.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): I would like to nominate Yvon Godin.
The Clerk: Are there any other nominations for the first vice-chair? No?
Nominations are now closed.
[Translation]
The motion before the committee is as follows: «That Mr. Yvon Godin be elected vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages».
(Motion carried)
The Clerk: I therefore declare Mr. Yvon Godin duly elected vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
À (1010)
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Chair, I have not yet said that I accept. I accept.
[English]
The Clerk: We can now proceed to the election of the vice-chair from the government side. Are there any nominations for the second vice-chair?
[Translation]
Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): I would like to nominate Ms. Thibeault.
The Clerk: Mr. Simard nominates Ms. Thibeault.
[English]
Are there any other nominations for the second vice-chair? No?
Nominations are now closed.
[Translation]
The motion before the committee reads as follows: «That Ms. Thibeault be elected vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
(Motion carried)
The Clerk: I therefore declare that Ms. Thibeault has been elected vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
The elections being completed, I would invite the newly elected chair to take the chair.
The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Thank you for placing your trust in me. I hope that you are right to do so; we will find out over the coming weeks.
[English]
Can we take a couple of minutes to deal with some housecleaning stuff in terms of when we meet and how frequently we meet?
[Translation]
Then, we could perhaps go around the table or, at least, come to an agreement on the best way to raise those issues that you may wish to discuss or about which we may wish to make recommendations.
Mr. Godin.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair, I hope that I am not mistaken, but if it is to discuss the meeting days, I believe that the schedule already stipulates that meetings will take place on Monday and Wednesday afternoons.
The Clerk: That is correct.
The Chair: Yes, but does that suit the members?
A Voice: Yes.
The Chair:Meetings will be held on Mondays and Wednesdays from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. We had always said that if that was not suitable, we would choose our own schedule, but if that is suitable, there is no problem.
Mr. Yvon Godin: For your information, all the parties put in a great deal of work to try to come up with a schedule. The schedule that we have at the moment will change in January.
The Chair: For the time being, we will go with Mondays and Wednesdays.
Mr. Bellemare.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Before going any further, Mr. Chair, perhaps we ought to establish... I see that the name of the committee has changed: it is a House of Commons committee, whereas previously it was a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. Did we strike ourselves? Did the House of Commons strike this committee? Are there automatically two committees because of the schism? What is the legal status of the two committees?
The Chair: The Official Languages Act clearly indicates that it is Parliament that decides how its committees will work. I felt that there should be one, but opinion was divided. So, the five parties in the House decided to strike a House standing committee.
When it was struck, when the House procedures were amended, the Government House Leader was very clear when he said, and I quote:
| It is intended that this committee be mandated with reviewing on a permanent basis the application of the Official Languages Act. |
So, I think that it is clear that, as is stated in clause 88 of the Official Languages Act, this committee has the mandate. If, for one reason or another, it was not clear, we could certainly ask the House of Commons to clarify the issue, however, for the moment, it is very clear that it is this committee that has the mandate that is set out in the Official Languages Act.
Is that okay?
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: If the committee from the Other Place chooses to study a subject similar, or identical, to our chosen subject, for example the Report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, it is going to be something of a dog's breakfast. Which recommendations will be received by Parliament, those from the House of Commons or those from the Senate?
The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, there could indeed be confusion and duplication. We can certainly try to avoid such problems as much as possible, but until such time as we find ourselves in that situation, I think that we just have to act in good faith, do the best that we can, and try to solve any problems that arise. I cannot see any other way of going about our work. Is that okay?
Mr. Godin.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair, I believe that we have two independent committees. We could never stop the Senate from doing what they want to do, and conversely, they could never stop us from doing as we see fit. I am not saying that we cannot consult one another from time to time; that may well happen, but now that the deed has been done, we have to work independently, we have to judge for ourselves what is right.
Let us not forget that we are the elected representatives.
Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Chair I greatly appreciate Mr. Godin's comments, I have a great deal of respect for him, but Mr. Godin is not a legislative drafter.
Secondly, he is a member of a party which opposes the Senate. So, he will certainly be studying the question.
The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, with all due respect, I think we should move on. We have to act in good faith and we expect the Senate committee to do the same.
Should a problem arise, we will obviously turn our attention to it, in order that we find a suitable solution. But for the moment, let us try not to create problems. The mandate given in the act was a subject of concern which has been communicated to all parliamentarians by the joint chairs of the former committee. The issue seems to have been resolved in the sense that that mandate has been given to this committee. If that does not prove to be the case, we will go back to the House of Commons for further clarification. Is that okay?
We have routine motions regarding procedure which we should perhaps adopt.
À (1015)
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): We do not have quorum: the Liberals have left.
Mr. Yvon Godin: No, there are only eight of us.
The Chair: We need nine for a quorum. We will do it at the next meeting.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Can we check if there is someone outside?
The Chair: Allow me to ask you something: between now and our first meeting, and let us say that it will be on Monday, could we agree to communicate to the clerk the subjects that we wish to discuss? Bear in mind that we do not have much time left before the Christmas break.
[English]
We may have three or four meetings. We're not going to be able to cover a whole lot of ground. But if there are some things we think we must deal with before the Christmas break, let's see if we can bring those up, because I expect that there will be some changes in committees come February.
Let's not go too far ahead of what we need to do. If there are some things we can address in the immediate three weeks in front of us, can we find out what they are? We can deal with this matter right now if you wish,
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chair, could you tell us where we are at regarding the Quigley issue? It might not be mentioned in the committee report on Monday or Tuesday, but it would be useful to have a progress report on the committee's role in this affair. Are we still an intervener in the case? Do we have a lawyer? I could go on to discuss subjects which, I believe, could take up four meetings.
The Chair: There's no request from the committee to the courts to appear as a committee, because there is no longer a joint committee. It was quite clear in the discussions I had with the Board of Internal Economy that they would formally object to the joint chairs of the former committee appearing as such before the courts.
I must tell you that I made a request to appear on my own behalf. I was trying to protect our options, if you will, because I didn't know where this would end up. I have not yet received an answer to my request, but it is there and it has support in that all those involved, except the Board of Internal Economy, have said that they would accept that I be given the status of intervener. The Board of Internal Economy has not objected, but the courts have not yet made a decision. Up until now I have covered the costs myself.
I didn't expect to speak about this this morning but I did not feel, given the seriousness of the issue, that I could, from a moral point of view, let this go. And so I continued as best I could. That is the current situation.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: May I suggest that the committee reaffirm its interest and its intent to support you?
The Chair: You can certainly do that at our first meeting, or when you wish.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine.
Now, if it is time to discuss topics, and if we have three or four meetings ahead of us, I suggest that we do a follow-up on Air Canada's action plan. Given all that has happened recently with Air Canada, given that a complaint form was supposed to have been included in their magazine,enRoute, but hasn't been yet, and given the whole security issue, I suggest that we do a follow-up of Air Canada's action plan in order to determine what the current situation is.
[English]
The Chair: Is there anyone else?
Mr. Reid.
Mr. Scott Reid: I have two things that I would like to bring to the attention of the committee. Perhaps we can find time to discuss them.
One is an issue that I have raised in the House of Commons, and that is the issue of what I believe to be the non-compliance of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with the Official Languages Act—and particularly with section 21 and section 22 of the act—in issuing unilingual traffic citations in one part of the National Capital Region. I do think that's a matter that is of some importance. Whether or not it will fit into the schedule is for the committee to decide.
The other matter might strike you as perhaps being of a highly technical nature, but I think it's significant. One of the routine motions that is adopted by all committees, including this one—I'm referring to the distribution of documents: “That the Co-Clerks be authorized to distribute only documents available in both official languages.”—in practice has the effect of denying people who are witnesses the right to what amounts to a service in the language of their choice. That is, they are under a compunction to come here with documents provided in both languages. As well, we, as parliamentarians, have a privilege to see documents when they are distributed. But under these rules that bind this committee and many other committees when a document is provided only in French or only in English, we're denied the capacity to question the witnesses appropriately and to have full communication on the intended submissions. I think that also needs to be reviewed, because it is my impression that it is not in conformity with the constitutional requirements under section 16 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
À (1020)
The Chair: Okay, we will deal with those.
Madame Thibeault.
[Translation]
Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): This morning I read in the papers that the CRTC had decided to allow the cable companies to remove CPAC from their basic services. As of next March, there will be costs associated with viewing CPAC. I don't know if anyone else read that this morning. I read it quite quickly and I immediately wondered how that was going to affect official languages and the broadcasting of the House debates.
The Chair: So we should invite someone to explain that decision to us.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: If the committee feels it's worth it.
Some Hon. Members: Yes.
Ms. Yolande Thibeault: However I don't have any more information than that.
The Chair: Mr. Godin.
Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't want to prolong the debate, but with all due respect for Mr. Bellemare, he mentioned things that will have been recorded in the minutes and I would simply like to respond.
Mr. Bellemare, I have been a member here for five years. A political party can hold political opinions, but I don't think I could be accused of not having been able to work with the Senate in a committee. The Senate was part of a Joint Official Languages Committee and I think that over the past two years we worked remarkably well together and made a lot of progress.
They chose to separate from our committee. I do not want to be perceived as having said—and now I feel that I have been tagged with this—we separated because, with all due respect for these men and women, the NDP could not agree with the Senate because senators are appointed rather than being elected by the people, and therefore they could no longer work together. I do not agree with that. There are other committees here in Ottawa, that consider other issues, and there is no war between parties regarding what they do and what we do. I simply want my comments to be recorded because I feel that the comments that were made were not fair.
Mr. Chairman, in terms of future business, I agree that we should do a follow-up regarding CPAC. I am truly afraid that what appeared in the newspapers this morning has something to do with complying with a court decision that... I already gave you the example of what is happening in our part of the country. Interveners speaking English in the House of Commons also speak English on CPAC, and if the reply is in French, that reply is broadcast in French, and vice versa. People are upset because they say that they can only understand half of what is happening in the House of Commons. If this means that francophones who do not speak English cannot understand an answer or a question, and that anglophones who do not speak French cannot understand the answer to a question, I think this is an important decision. I think we should be able to provide these things to Canadian men and women.
The same is true of Air Canada. Air Canada is going to end up saying that it is the citizens who have to respect the official languages of its employees. They are going to reverse the roles, and that is the opposite of what should be happening in Canada. The services should be bilingual, not Canadians. The day all Canadians will be bilingual, we will no longer need official languages. That will be finished. They've truly reversed the roles. It is unacceptable. They should be called before us again.
À (1025)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Godin.
Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I would just like to add to Yvon's comments to reply to Mr. Bellemare. To my knowledge—this could be verified—there are two transport committees: one in the Senate and one in the House, there are two finance committees: one in the Senate and one at the House, and there are two foreign affairs committees: one at the Senate and one at the House.
The Chair: With your permission I would like to end this discussion. We may agree or not on what has happened, but our parties, our House leaders, have all agreed and nobody has objected to this committee being formed. Now let us do our best to ensure that all members of this committee, as well as those supporting us, are proud of our work.
Mr. Yvon Godin: Let us get on with our work and our mandate.
The Chair: I will ask the clerk to provide some background to those committee members who were not here this morning. At the next meeting, next week on Monday afternoon, there will be proposals for future business. Rules will have to be adopted. Perhaps we could have a discussion on the distribution of documents. We could also begin hearing witnesses next Wednesday. Perhaps we could call the CRTC immediately to discuss the CPAC decision.
Can we agree on that?
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Perhaps we could do that after reading the article.
The Chair: A decision was announced yesterday. Perhaps it should be explained to us, as well as its consequences.
[English]
If there are no objections, although we don't have a quorum here, we'll try to invite CRTC representatives about both the decision announced yesterday on CPAC and its implications vis-à-vis official languages.
Thank you. See you on Monday afternoon.