LANG Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, November 25, 2002

¹

1535

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

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

¹

1540

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Yolande Thibeault

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

¹

1545

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

¹

1555

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

º

1600

The Chair

Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

º

1605

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

º

1610

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

º

1620

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Scott Reid

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

º

1625

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

---

NUMBER 002

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, November 25, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): If you don't mind my saying so, Parliament sometimes works in strange ways. We used to have 25 members and quorum was 7. But we now have 16 members and quorum is 9 members. So, we'll have to watch it. We have quorum now, but every party will have to ensure that their members are present so we can conduct our business. Since we did not have quorum at one point last week, we will have to complete the adoption of the committee's standing rules today. As well, those present at the meeting said that we should set our work plan between now and Christmas, at the very least.

    Last week, we distributed a form with motions. Can we adopt these routine motions in order according to normal procedure? The first motion reads as follows:

That the Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure be composed of the Chair, the Vice-Chair, the Parliamentary Secretary (Canadian Heritage) and [Number] (X) representatives from the opposition parties.

    We have to specify the number. Should it be one, two or three?

    Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Carleton, Canadian Alliance): We should have one representative from each party.

    The Chair: If that's the case, we would need three additional Liberal members, or something like that. We can also opt for the committee of the whole, I don't mind.

[English]

    Mr. Scott Reid: This is the subcommittee.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): You can check up on this, but the subcommittee usually does not make any decisions; it decides on an issue unanimously which is then brought before the committee.

    At every other committee I sit on, the subcommittee does not have two or three representatives from each party, but only one. You can have three if you want, but usually it's just one member per party.

    The Chair: Each party wants to be represented. In any case, I thought we could have the chairman, the vice-chairman and the parliamentary secretary to liaise with the government. In any case, any issue is then brought before the full committee.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Who is the parliamentary secretary?

    The Chair: It is currently Ms. Bulte.

    The point is to have someone from the opposition, someone from government and someone to liaise with government.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't have a problem with that.

    The Chair: Therefore, the sub-committee will have as its members the chairman, the two vice-chairmen and the parliamentary secretary.

    Would you like there to be one or two additional members from the opposition?

[English]

    It's up to you.

    Mr. Scott Reid: We should have at least one person.

    The Chair: One more? That would be fine. That would be five people.

[Translation]

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Mr. Reid is right to say that there should be an opposition member, but one of the two vice-chairmen is already an opposition member.

[English]

    The Chair: Do you want to be on the subcommittee?

    An hon. member: Yes, please.

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: We can ask Benoît if he wants to be on it. If so, we'll add an additional Liberal to maintain a balance, unless we decide to only have the full committee. It's up to us.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, with the other committees, when there is a steering committee, it is not necessary... There are no votes; it works by unanimous consent. Proposals which have received the unanimous support of the subcommittee are brought before the full committee. It's to help the committee do its work, but no final decisions are taken at the subcommittee level. That's how other committees operate, but it's up to you to decide whether you want three or four government members. All decisions, however, are taken by the full committee.

    The Chair: Ms. Thibeault.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): I suggest we do away with the subcommittee. We already have far fewer members than in the past. Therefore, I simply suggest that our committee make all the decisions.

    The Chair: And I would consult everyone. Before an issue would be brought forth, we would consult everyone, as we also did in the past. So, let's go ahead with that idea and if at any point we should need a subcommittee, we can always strike one.

    Ms. Yolande Thibeault: If necessary.

    The Chair: Are we all agreed?

    Do you agree, Mr. Reid?

[English]

A suggestion has been made by Madame Thibeault, and there seems to be a consensus, that we not strike a steering committee for now, and we'll deal with it as a full committee. Okay?

    Mr. Scott Reid: Okay.

[Translation]

    The Chair: So we won't have a subcommittee for now.

    The second motion reads as follows:

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

    Believe me, we will need help. The motion is moved by Mr. Godin, seconded by Ms. Thibeault. Under this motion, the young man sitting next to me will do this committee's research, as he did for the joint committee. We need good research. Perhaps we will even need help at some point.

    (Motion agreed to)

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, it's moved that the clerk—there are no co-clerks anymore—be authorized to distribute only documents available in both official languages. That's proposed by Monsieur Godin.

    Monsieur Reid, you had a point that you wanted to bring up.

    Mr. Scott Reid: That's right.

    My view is that this rule is a violation of subsection 17(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states:

Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.

[Translation]

    In French:

Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.

[English]

    I've prepared some background documentation in both languages to make this point, and it can be distributed. What has occurred in this committee and other committees is that, on numerous occasions—three occasions that I can quote in this committee, but there have been others before other committees—witnesses have come before committee and have made submissions that have been written in either one official language or the other official language. Of course, in speaking to the committee, their verbal presentations are obviously made in one language or the other, and simultaneous translation is provided.

    When they make a written presentation, of course, if they come with their submission in both official languages, then it is circulated, but it's not circulated otherwise. As a result, documents not being circulated is a very frequent occurrence. One of the consequences is that members are unable to consult these document during their deliberations.

    There are occasions when the deliberations are moving forward at an unhurried pace, but there are other occasions when time is very much of the essence. A good example of this would be the committee that was meeting with regard to Bill C-36 last year, the anti-terrorism act. There was tremendous pressure to get that through. To give one example, the submission of the Privacy Commissioner, George Radwanski, could not be circulated, with his specific proposed amendments to the bill, because it had not yet been translated.

    On that occasion and on other occasions, it has become impossible for the members to pursue their deliberations. Whether or not that infringes upon our privileges as parliamentarians is a secondary question, the primary question being subsection 17(1) of the charter.

    It seems to me that it's very hard to interpret a submission given by an individual of the public as a document of Parliament, and therefore requiring it to be bilingual at the time it is submitted to the committee. On the other hand, it seems very hard to not think of it as in fact being a usage of one or the other of the official languages by the witness. It seems to me that their right to make those submissions is being infringed upon by means of the rule as it is currently written.

    I think there's a way around this, and I have proposed this. Unfortunately, everybody but me now has a copy.

¹  (1545)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: In French or in English?

[English]

    Mr. Scott Reid: Oh, I don't know--either.

    At the very back, on the very last page—the one that has my signature on it—I've proposed that we could say something like this:

That, in order to comply with Section 17(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,

1. all witnesses be informed of their right to distribute to committee members briefs or other documents in either official language, and that at the first committee meeting following the deposit of any such document, all members of the committee be advised of the said deposit and of their right to collect a copy of any untranslated documents from the Clerk;

2. except when acting in conformity with a request from a member for a copy of a document under subsection (1), the Clerk be authorized to distribute only documents available in both languages;

    I think that would respect the charter rights of witnesses before the committee. At the same time, it would allow for us to be respectful of the sincere desire of everybody that documents be distributed in both official languages in the most prompt manner possible, and that they be distributed only in both languages whenever that is realistically possible.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Are there any comments?

    Mr. Bellemare.

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I would like to congratulate Mr. Reid for his presentation. I congratulate him for having presented two documents: one in French and one in English. He is setting a good example. However, I do not congratulate Mr. Reid, who is a member for the National Capital Region, for having a unilingual letterhead.

    That being said, I know, Mr. Chairman, that everyone has the right to his or her opinion or to formulate criticism. I have the right to both. In this forum, it is the clerk who distributes documents to members. When a department or a national or governmental agency makes a presentation, there are members of both official language groups here to listen. In my view, documents should be presented in both languages. I have been on this committee for 14 years and this has always been the case.

    I agree with Mr. Reid, but I do not support his quoting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it's a matter of interpretation. I think Mr. Reid has stretched the definition a little too far. We could have a debate on who has the right to what in certain circumstances. I have the right to speak English; you have the right to speak French. We have the right to debate in the language of our choice, but when an individual comes before the committee, someone who does not represent an institution, we have always accepted the fact that if this person does not have documentation in both languages, it cannot be distributed through the clerk. Further, the witness has the right to give the document to whoever is interested in having it and the witness has the right to make his presentation in the language of his choice. The reason why we allow this is because we don't want it to be a burden for a Canadian to testify before a committee. As well, as Mr. Reid rightly pointed out, we respect the right of individuals to participate in our debates or to make a presentation before representatives of the Government of Canada.

    However, if we are dealing with a national organization, say a fictitious national physicians' association, whose representatives presented us with a unilingual French document, the situation is different. In that case, Mr. Reid may be right in saying that we should question whether the report should be officially received by the committee. He may disagree and say that the report must also be presented in English. I would agree with him on that point, because we would be dealing with an organization which has resources, even if little notice was given.

    I've come to notice something: it seems that agencies and departments are increasingly under such time pressure that they just can't get around to translating their papers. Nothing is more offensive than to hear people say that they are under so much pressure that they haven't had time for our second official language.

    Therefore, I don't agree that witnesses should be allowed to present their reports in either language. If you want to present a report and if you want everyone to receive a copy, it should be submitted in both languages, except in the case of individuals speaking on their own behalf.

¹  (1550)  

    The Chair: To shed some light on the discussion, I will read you a quotation from Marleau-Montpetit, if I may. Mr. Reid referred to it in his remarks. It appears on page 849, under the heading "Document Distribution":

Members of the House of Commons are entitled to receive documents in the official language of their choice. At the same time, members of the public have the right to communicate with a parliamentary committee in either official language. This frequently leads to the situation where a document is presented in a single official language to a committee, while the committee members are entitled to receive it in whichever language they prefer. Committees must balance the right of members to be treated equally with the benefits they derive from receiving documents in a timely manner. Each committee must decide whether documents submitted to it in only one official language will be distributed to members immediately or once a translation is available.

    And there are two motions mentioned as well:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to circulate the documents received only when they exist in both official languages.

    That is what we have here. The other one reads as follows:

That the Clerk of the Committee be authorized to distribute documents to the members of the committee in the language received, and to ensure that such documents are translated and distributed as promptly as possible.

    Marleau-Montpetit also mentions section 17 of the 1982 Constitution Act and refers to it on the same page. So there is no contradiction, I do not think we are doing something in violation of the Constitution, contrary to what was suggested earlier. Unless Marleau-Montpetit is mistaken, we are not at odds with the Constitution of Canada. It is up to the committee to decide. I wanted to make sure that all committee members were aware of this quotation from Marleau-Montpetit.

[English]

    You're aware of this, I take it.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I am, Mr. Chairman. My view on this is that these are parliamentary authorities, and this is actually a justiciable right, I would argue. The only way one could actually be in conformity with the Constitution with respect to subsection 17(1) on the right of witnesses...because the Constitution does say everyone has the right.

    I recognize what Monsieur Bellemare is saying on the goodwill that ought to be shown by large groups that come before us. Notwithstanding that, the Constitution says everyone has the right. And as the courts have interpreted it, the right to speak includes the right to be understood.

    It seems to me the only way one could put a restriction upon any distribution of documents in the committee that were not translated would be if the witnesses were then invited back to continue their testimony at that time. I cite as an example the time I was a witness before the committee. It was clearly impossible for me to make the points I intended to bring forward without the attachments to which I referred regularly throughout my presentation. It was impossible for the members--and Mr. Turp from the Bloc Québécois made this point after I had spoken to the committee--to understand what I was saying.

    It seems to me the only way to reconcile that and stick to an absolute regime of non-distribution of documents would be to essentially invite the witnesses back after their presentations had been translated. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to do that, but it would obviously be very problematic in situations where you had some form of tight legislative deadline to achieve.

    I must say, I still believe that the motion as put forward before this committee, in its current form, is actually in contravention of subsection 17(1).

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Should it be adopted, we'll deal with that after. But right now we have a motion that is pretty standard, and we will either adopt it or not.

    Next is Monsieur Godin, and then Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    If the Official Languages Committee agrees today that documents can be received in one language only, I think it is making a mistake and setting a poor example. Both the federal government and the Government of New Brunswick ask all Canadians to submit their documents in both official languages. If we cannot comply with the same rules ourselves, how can we ask them to do so?

    Let me give you an example. Last week, I received a document from the Government of Canada entitled: Climate Change Plan for Canada. It definitely must have come from the Department of the Environment. There was a note on the document stating that the French version of the plan would be available soon and that the information kit would be sent out to us on Friday morning. This morning, the document arrived, and there was no French version. It was still in English only. If we want to raise arguments in this regard, it is better to follow the same rules that we impose on others.

    I would ask the committee to support strongly the motion we have here so that no documents are distributed unless they are in both official languages. When the clerk invites witnesses to appear before the committee, it is his responsibility to ask the witnesses to send their documents in ahead of time so that they may be translated. Most of the time, if the translation is not available, it is because the witness did not send in the document. I'm telling you that the committee would be making a mistake if it does anything else.

    I have another example, but I will speak about it later.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I agree in all respects with the comments made by my friend and colleague, Mr. Godin. First of all, I would like to tell you, Mr. Reid, that this is the Committee on Official Languages. So we should probably be setting an example.

    Second, the chairman read the text correctly; we never prevent a witness from testifying in English only; we even have a simultaneous interpretation service available for them. However, as a parliamentarian, I also have certain rights. I have the right, when I listen to a witness, to have simultaneous interpretation and to read in whichever official language I prefer, the testimony being presented by that witness. If witnesses make their presentation in English only, and if they have the right to do that in English, I feel that my rights as a member of parliament are being disregarded, because I have the right, as a parliamentarian, to receive documents in the language of my choice.

    Furthermore, I am actually rather grateful to Mr. Reid for showing us how far we, the members of the francophone community, can go in defending our rights. For that, I am grateful to you. We are seeing that some parliamentary associations such as the Canada-Europe Association have been saying to some members of this House that in order to save $1,000 or $1,500, they will no longer be offering simultaneous interpretation at their meetings. I think that if the opposite were to happen to the anglophone community, we would probably be hearing a great deal more about it.

    When 6 members of a Canadian team of 12 represent a minority and their rights are totally disregarded, when they get no documents in one of the 2 official languages, and when the association in question is 100% funded by the Government of Canada—I am referring to Synchro-Canada—I think that if the shoe were on the other foot, we would be hearing a much louder protest. So I would like to thank you for your lesson in how far we can all go in defending our rights.

    However, when it comes to having my rights as a parliamentarian disregarded in order to respect rights of witnesses—and they are already respected in any case, because they can speak the language of their choice—I hope you will be as democratic and that you will comply with the decision of the committee.

    Thank you very much.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Are there any other comments? Mr. Castonguay.

    Mr. Jeannot Castonguay (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly understand what our colleague meant when he said that time is of the essence. That I can understand. However, when it comes to communication, it is very important to ensure that everyone understands exactly what the speaker is saying. And when we start playing with words, subtle differences of meaning are sometimes very important.

    Consequently, I feel very strongly about getting the documents. I would even go further: I want to get the documents in both official languages so that I can review them and ensure that there is no contradiction between the two versions. Since my mother tongue is French, it is obviously much easier for me to understand subtle differences of meaning in that language. Similarly, it is easier for me to express subtle differences of meaning in my own language.

    I therefore think it is important to stress to our witnesses how important it is to submit their texts so that we can have them translated before the meeting.

    On the other committees of which I am a member, I must tell you that I deplore tremendously the fact that we get documents that have not been distributed because they have not yet been translated. I receive the translations four or five days later. We have huge workloads. When the text comes in four or five days later, we are already involved in other work. So I think we should insist—and I would stress this word, of course—that we apply a great deal of pressure to our witnesses to get them to submit their presentations in writing ahead of time, so that there is time to get them translated. In this way, I think we could meet the needs of all committee members.

    The Chair: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to intervene?

[English]

    Mr. Scott Reid: I just wanted to respond to a couple of the comments that were made. First of all, with regard to the comment of Monsieur Godin, he's 100% right about that document circulated with regard to Kyoto. Under subsection 17(1), the circulation of that document in the form that was done was unconstitutional, and I can't imagine what excuse the government has for it. There is a different obligation on the government: Parliament and its instruments are required to operate in both official languages.

    While he's quite right on that and something should be done about it, I do think that is separate from the right of all Canadians under subsection 17(1) to deal with the House of Commons or other parliamentary bodies in either English or French.

    This is just on another point that was made. I was a witness myself, and it's the first example I cite; these are in chronological order. I would have been happy to submit the documents I provided in both languages if I'd been notified, but I wasn't. If you go through the examples I've offered, some of the witnesses indicate their surprise at and unawareness of being required to do so or of the fact that there was a desire to have their documents submitted in both languages. So that's a problem.

    Others have indicated that they simply didn't have the time. They had good intentions, and this includes witnesses before this committee who have indicated that they would very much have wanted to have their documents before the committee but that it simply was not possible, given the pressures of time.

[Translation]

    In answer to the comments made by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois with respect to the documents that are distributed only in English, I would like to show him example 3 of my document dated May 30th of last year. It was a presentation given by the Gens de l'air and written only in French. We also have example number 7: on March 18th of this year, Mr. Jean-Guy Rioux, Chairman of the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, submitted a document that was in French only.

º  (1605)  

[English]

    In both cases these are people of goodwill who wanted to get them to the committee in both languages but were unable to get them here. For whatever reason, the translations weren't completed in time, though in one case the translation was partly completed in time. It seems to me that in our deliberations--and many of us were on that committee--we were unable to receive the documents in either language--or in any language, indeed--making it very difficult to grasp what the point of their presentations was at the time when that was most needed.

    So I'm not sure that the point my colleague was driving at is entirely correct. I think the assertion being made was that we tend to get documents mostly in English, and I don't think that's the case. There is a problem in that we are simply unable to see these documents and consult them in any language until such time as the translation has taken place. That to me infringes on my privileges as a member of Parliament.

    Indeed, in one of those two cases I actually approached the clerk and asked if I could nonetheless take a peek at the document in French to get some sense of what the witness was saying. Of course, he could not comply with that without breaking the rules, and that's the problem we are confronted with.

    Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: One final comment, Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I understand what Mr. Reid is saying. He states that all Canadians should be able to have these in both languages. As a member of this committee, I consider myself to be a Canadian and I would like to have my documents in my own language because it is easier for me to read them. I agree that we should not favour one language over another, because the documents that are tabled here are almost always in French, and the member from the Canadian Alliance has not always been someone who understands French. We have had members who were unilingual anglophones, and I think they appreciated the fact that we did not circulate these documents in order to put everyone on an equal footing so that we might all be able to respond at the same time. Otherwise, a member could speak to the press while his colleague might not have the same advantage, if he did not have the document. So in this way, at the very least, all of the parties and all of the individuals on the committee have the same five-minute version, and we can all live with that. That allows everyone to be treated equally. Otherwise, we would not all be given the same advantages and most of the time, at this committee, the anglophones would be the ones to suffer, if they were asked to fill in for you.

    The Chair: Thank you. Are we ready to vote?

    The motion before the committee is the following: “That the Clerk will only distribute documents that are in both official languages.”

    (Motion agreed to)

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Reid, I'm not insensitive to what you've said and to what other members have said here, so can we can give a directive to our clerk that any invitation to any witness is to be accompanied with a notice that, one, documents will only be distributed if they're in the two languages; and two, if they are not capable of providing it in both languages or are not willing to do so, we will do the translation as long as it is provided to us within a reasonable amount of time to permit us to do so. That would be highlighted the moment we invite any witness. Is that agreeable?

    Mr. Scott Reid: Yes.

    The Chair: The clerk is so directed.

    Secondly, if you still believe there's an inconsistency with the Constitution of Canada, Mr. Reid, I believe we should seek advice. I don't have any problem with you bringing a motion to the effect that we seek advice or a ruling from some of our legal advisers within the House of Commons. We'll get what they believe is the proper interpretation, and we'll take it from there.

    You can seek that on your own, but I would think, or I would hope, my colleagues wouldn't have a problem seeking that as a committee. I'll leave that up to you, though.

    Mr. Scott Reid: I would prefer to seek it as a committee, quite frankly.

    The Chair: Would you be prepared to draft something to that effect?

º  (1610)  

    Mr. Scott Reid: Sure.

    The Chair: Is that fair enough? Okay.

[Translation]

    Thank you. We will continue.

[English]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: We want to see it before it's sent, though.

    The Chair: If it's done in committee, of course it will be.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: In both languages.

    The Chair: In both languages.

[English]

     We'll get it translated for you if you want.

[Translation]

    We will now move on to the meetings held without a quorum.

[English]

    This is to authorize us to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that at least x number of members are present. In the joint committee, that was a quorum of four. In most committees, I'm told it's three to hear witnesses.

[Translation]

    As far as I am concerned, three or four...

    Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Three.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Four isn't too many.

[English]

    Okay, “including”.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: ...including one opposition member.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: That's included.

    The Chair: It is already written, therefore, it is not necessary to add it. That is what I mean. Should we extend that to four? Four is not a huge number.

    Some Hon. Members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau moves that the number be four.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: We will now move on to the time allocated for preliminary statements and questioning of witnesses.

    Previously we had seven minutes, five minutes, five minutes. Can we continue with seven, five, five, that is, seven minutes for the first round, five minutes for the second and five minutes for the third round?

    It is moved by Ms. Thibault.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: And do we allow 10 minutes for the witnesses' statements? That is also what we had previously.

    Some Hon. Members: Yes.

    The Chair: We will now move on to witnesses' expenses. This is a standard motion. They will be limited to two representatives per organization. That gives them a certain amount of leeway.

    It is moved by Mr. Godin.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: We will now move on to the working lunches. That would apply if we need to meet at that time of day. At this time, our meetings are scheduled for Monday and Wednesday at 3:30 p.m.

    It is moved by Mr. Sauvageau.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next motion deals with the transcription of in camera meetings.

[English]

    On transcription of in camera meetings, it's proposed that one copy of the transcripts of all in camera meetings be kept in the committee clerk's office for consultation by members of the committee.

[Translation]

    It is also a standard motion, moved by Mr. Binet. Thank you, Mr. Binet.

    (Motion agreed to)

[English]

    The Chair: On staff during in camera meetings, it's proposed that each committee member be allowed to have a staff person present.

[Translation]

    The motion is moved by Mr. Sauvageau.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The next motion involves the Official Languages Commissioner:

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.

    This is a motion that we have drafted for our purposes. Things seem to be working out. I hope it will continue.

    It is moved by Ms. Thibault.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: We will now move on to the substantive motions.

[English]

    On notice of substantive motions, again, this is pretty standard, that unless you have unanimous consent, 48 hours' notice...which is two sleep periods, essentially. So if we get a motion on Monday, we can deal with it on Wednesday.

[Translation]

    That is the wording, unless we have unanimous consent to proceed differently.

    The motion is moved by Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I will move it, but when you say unanimous consent, if there is unanimous consent, the motion has to be dealt with just as any other motion for which 48 hours' notice has been given.

    The Chair: Suppose that this motion carries, and on Wednesday afternoon, you wanted to raise something that had taken place earlier. If there is no unanimous consent, all you can do is give notice. Otherwise, we would have to...

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I do not wish to enter into a debate now, Mr. Chairman, but I did rise on a question of privilege in the House of Commons last week, and today, when a committee chairman commented on my question of privilege, he said that the member had been allowed to move his motion out of courtesy. This has nothing to do with being nice: if you agree, then you agree.

    What I am saying is that if the committee agrees to drop the 48-hour notice in order to examine an urgent matter, then the matter should be dealt with in the same way, at that time, as would any motion for which 48 hours' notice had been given. That is why I want it to be on the record.

º  (1615)  

    The Chair: Absolutely. If unanimous consent is granted, we will proceed just as we would if we had had the notice. It goes without saying, but now it has been said.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I simply wanted to ensure that it would be in the committee transcript.

    The Chair: It has been duly recorded.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: These motions will enable us to operate as a committee. Thank you.

    I had also talked about setting a kind of working agenda for meetings that will take place between now and Christmas. We do not have much time left. In fact, we have a meeting this Wednesday, and we had already said that we wanted to try and bring the people from the CRTC in so that they could update us on the most recent decision on CPAC and the impact, be it positive or negative, that it may have on the broadcasting of House proceedings. We also have two meetings the following week, on December 2 and December 4, and another meeting on December 9. A lot of people are saying that it would be best not to schedule a meeting for December 11. So in theory, we have four meetings before Christmas.

    Here is the workload that I would like to propose. On Wednesday, we could meet with the CRTC to discuss the decision it made last week on CPAC and the impact that it may have so that we are aware of the situation. It should not last too long if there is no controversy. After that, we could call the Solicitor General of Canada, at Mr. Reid's request, to ask what authorizes him to distribute unilingual fines in the National Capital Region. There is also the issue of Air Canada, and I would add, if I may, the Commissioner of Official Languages, who issued a report in September. I spoke to the Commissioner's Office today, and I was told that she would be available December 9. That leaves the two meetings next week, when we could meet with the Solicitor General and the representatives from Air Canada.

    I do not know if you have all received it, but we received a letter from Air Canada on the issue of francophones sitting next to emergency exits. The matter appears to have been resolved. I do not know if you saw that. I am being told that it will be sent tomorrow. The issue was raised and it has perhaps already been resolved.

    Secondly, Mr. Sauvageau had asked that we ask these people where they were with their action plan. We received the action plan in March, and it was supposed to be in force starting in March, less than a year ago, but I have a suggestion for Air Canada so that the matter is not left unfinished.

    Last summer, in August, Air Canada received a report of an independent investigation on the situation of official languages at Air Canada. We did not debate the report in committee. It would perhaps be a good idea to bring in this woman or some people from the Department of Transport. It is an independent overview of the situation at Air Canada recommended by the government.

    Then, we would have time to plan our work for February, March, April, May and June.

    So in summary, we will hear from the CRTC on Wednesday, from Air Canada and the Solicitor General next week, and from the Commissioner of Official Languages on December 9.

    I would also like to propose a study of another matter if we have time to deal with it. You will recall that we worked on immigration last spring, but that we never adopted the report. A motion was adopted in the House at the start of the second session enabling all committees to recover the work that they had done and to use it as if it had been conducted during this session. So we could also table in the House the report on the work that we did on immigration, even if that entails updating it. We could also do that during one of the four meetings that we will have before Christmas.

    After Christmas, I will go around the table and ask each committee member for suggestions, and I will prepare a proposed action plan in cooperation with the two vice-chairs and the other members of the committee. Would you be agreeable to that? Are there any questions or comments?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I want to know when we will be able to discuss that.

    The Chair: We can discuss it right away if we have unanimous consent.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to move a motion. I can give 48 hours' notice.

    The Chair: Go ahead.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I was apprised of the issue about five minutes after the start of the meeting, and I would like to discuss it at the Committee on Official Languages.

    The Chair: Can you tell us what you are talking about?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: The Climate Change Plan for Canada report. The document was distributed in English only.

    The Chair: Are you talking about the report that was released publicly last Thursday?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: It was distributed last Thursday, and we were told that the French version of the plan will follow shortly. It is now Monday, and we have only received the English text of the plan. So we have received the first and second documents in English, and we still do not have the French. So some people are at a disadvantage.

    The Chair: The French exists: I saw it.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: If it exists, it has not yet been sent to my office.

    The Chair: At any rate, the two versions were not made public at the same time.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Yes. As I said, there was a note saying that the other would follow. It would seem that there is always one language that has to follow the other; they can never come out at the same time.

    The Chair: What would you like us to do, Mr. Godin?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: The committee could write a letter to the department to lodge a complaint. I could move a motion, but we would have to come back to it in 48 hours.

    The Chair: We could deal with that Monday or Wednesday.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I could prepare a motion. I might lodge a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages.

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I apologize to the clerk, because I did not talk about before or after Christmas. We did that at our last meeting. If a witness cancels at the last minute, we could perhaps invite someone from National Defence to come before Christmas, or if not, after Christmas. In the department's annual report on the situation of positions that are designated bilingual, whether they are at headquarters or in the army in general, it says that more than 60% of the positions designated bilingual are held by members of the Canadian forces who are not bilingual. It would perhaps be interesting to meet with these people during one of our meetings.

    The Chair: I do not have a problem with that, Mr. Sauvageau, but these matters involve research. We have to prepare.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: They also table an annual report on official languages, which is available. We obtained it through the clerk.

    The Chair: I do not have a problem with that. If a witness does cancel, we can see if these people could be ready at the last minute. Otherwise, we could certainly meet with them in February, when we resume our work.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes.

    The Chair: Do we want to proceed in this manner? I will sum up one last time. We will meet with the CRTC on Wednesday. I will point out, for the benefit of our clerk, that the last two times the people from the CRTC came, they were not CRTC commissioners. We had insisted that at least one be a CRTC commissioner, and that person could be accompanied by anyone he or she chose. So, we will hear from the CRTC on Wednesday. They will be coming to explain the decision and its impact, if there is one, on parliamentary proceedings. On Monday or Wednesday of next week, we will hear from the Solicitor General and the person who prepared the independent report on Air Canada. And on Monday, December 9, we will hear from the Commissioner of Official Languages. At that point, there will be some consultation work done in order to prepare our work for the spring.

[English]

    Mr. Scott Reid: In the way you've planned it out, are we to have a full session to deal with each of these subjects separately? I know that sometimes committees will lump together more than one witness on the same day on different topics, and I personally find it very hard--

    The Chair: This would be per meeting, one per meeting.

    Mr. Scott Reid: Excellent, thank you.

    The Chair: If I may also share some thoughts,

[Translation]

    the committee has been successful by agreeing on certain subjects and by bringing in several people. I would like to invite committee members to think about this possibility. We have work to do, and it is perfectly legitimate to meet the commissioner and to study estimates, but we should perhaps agree—and we will have an opportunity to discuss this again—on certain target areas, and get to the bottom of the matter, so that we can make some concrete recommendations to government. I do not think we will have time to do that before Christmas, except perhaps on immigration, because the work has already been done. As we started late, we will catch up in the spring. Okay? Is there anything else?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: If you have information on Air Canada, can you send it to our offices?

    The Chair: The report that was mentioned this morning?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: No, the issue about the emergency exits and all that.

    The Chair: I think that it has gone out.

    The Clerk of the Committee: It will go out tomorrow. We received the documents last week, but had to get them translated.

º  (1625)  

    The Chair: Okay. It will be sent out this week. Is there anything else? Thank you.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, have we already received the report on immigration?

    The Chair: You have not received it because you were not a member of the committee. In passing, congratulations. We will ask our researcher to see if it needs to be updated, because it was prepared several months ago. It will be redistributed next week at the latest.

    So we meet again Wednesday afternoon.

    The meeting is adjourned.