LANG Committee Meeting

    Welcome to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. This is our 25th meeting. Today is Tuesday, February 14, 2012, and we are here to continue the work of the committee.

    We will continue debating Costas Menegakis' motion and Mr. Harris' amendment.

    Mr. Aubin, go ahead.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome home and welcome to the committee. I hope that jet lag is a thing of the past, or almost. In any case, we are very happy to see you again. I am very pleased to see Mr. Menegakis among us again.

    I don't know if everyone is absolutely set on me wishing you a happy Valentine's Day, but I am somewhat bothered by commercial holidays. If Valentine's Day helped people connect, that would be the best thing we could gain from it. Although I may respect you, gentlemen, I am not in love with you. I want that to be clear.

    That being said, I want to extend a special welcome to Mr. Menegakis. I think that his presence in the Standing Committee on Official Languages is absolutely necessary for us to resolve the matter we have been debating for a few meetings already. That's because he is the one who moved this motion. I want to remind you that the motion asks “that all committee business of the committee be conducted in camera.” We have been divided on that issue since the motion was moved, since its interpretation could be very broad.

    I would like to provide a very brief summary to begin the meeting, since we are lucky to have new members at the table.

    Mr. Chair, a point of order.

    Since Mr. Menegakis is back, I am wondering whether he could explain what “all committee business of the committee” means. I think that there may be a misunderstanding. This could help with the committee business.

     It's clear what the motion reads: “That all Committee business of the Committee be conducted in camera.”

    I don't think we need an interpreter to tell us what that means.

    Is there another point of order?

     I want to be abundantly clear that my motion speaks only to the 10 or 15 minutes per meeting that we take to discuss the housekeeping business of the committee, not the entire two hours. That was very clear to the opposition members when I made my motion, and unfortunately it got lost somewhere in the translation.

    Thank you for that intervention. I think we're getting into debate here, but I'm going to allow Mr. Bélanger to have the floor.

    Go ahead. You just said point of order.

    No, I said that is not a point of order.

    Sorry, I misunderstood you.

    Exactly. It's not a point of order. It's your clarification that doesn't stand.

    The chair is trying to speak.

     In both cases I think we're getting into debate. I think the motion and the amendment are clear.

    Without further ado, I'll return the floor to Mr. Aubin.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I will try to bring some context to the debate we have been engaged in for a few weeks already. This morning, we once again have new members joining us at this table. I don't know whether that is a sign of interest in the Standing Committee on Official Languages, but it looks like every Conservative representative may come, one by one, to spend some time here.

    This is the third lecture of the democracy 101 course, but let's quickly go back to the second one in order to summarize what we talked about last time. First, I pointed out how outrageous the motion was and said I felt that introducing the motion would be like using a canon to kill a fly. Then I tried to explain whom and what we were fighting for in order to prevent this motion from being adopted. I will not go back over all that, out of respect for those who were here. I guess those who are really interested could consult Hansard. Hansard is actually the first issue I will discuss this morning, since that is what I began talking about when the previous meeting ended.

    I also talked a lot about and provided a few excerpts from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice. I think that those excerpts clearly illustrated the importance of the right to freedom of speech we as members of this house have, be it in our House of Commons or committee work. I want to remind you that freedom of speech does not exclude in camera proceedings. I even shared some examples where proceeding in camera is not only allowed, but preferable. On this side of the table, we are never against a portion of the committee business being conducted in camera. That is a long-standing practice. What divides us is this motion asking “that all committee business of the committee be conducted in camera.” Therefore, I spent a long time talking about the right to freedom of speech and its importance.

    We also discussed the proposal for an open government. Regarding that, I brought up some government documents intending to demonstrate the idea of openness the government wants to implement in its relationship with Canadians. We felt—and I still feel—that this completely contradicts the motion before us.

    I dare not talk about fighting because the word seems to be too strong. However, when I first spoke in defence of the right to freedom of speech, I spontaneously used the expression “marathon of indignation ”. What I meant was that, as long as I drew breath and was allowed to speak, I would try in every possible way, imaginable and unimaginable, to defend this vision.

    The first idea that went through my head was to appeal to those for whom I feel I am speaking. I am talking about Canadians from across the country who are increasingly facing restrictions, not only on their right to speak, but also on the information they are given. Then, I posted on my personal Facebook profile a letter inviting people, those who feel that my current marathon must continue, to write me, to give me their opinion and fuel my efforts. I wanted to be absolutely certain that what I am saying is still relevant and current, not only to those who elected me in Trois-Rivières, and whom I hope to represent as much as possible, but also to people from across the country who elected all the members and want our work to be public.

    People also want the media to be able to report on that work. Although some Canadians watch the CPAC channel regularly and follow our work very closely, most people prefer the summaries provided by the media. People obtain enough information from those summaries to form an opinion about topics that play a part in their everyday lives and in the country's political development.

    I talked a lot about the CPAC and ParlVU channels. I stopped when I was about to begin talking about Hansard. All those tools have been implemented over the years by the government to make politics a public interest. It seems to me that, if we were to use in camera proceedings almost systematically, we would be throwing away huge amounts of money by not using so many tools available to parliamentarism.

    I wrapped up my comments with a third element that makes the openness mentioned earlier and the public's awareness of our work possible, Hansard. I would like to take a few minutes to read a document about Hansard's origins, its purpose and its bilingualism—which is completely relevant because this is the Standing Committee of Official Languages. It is of the utmost importance that Canadians across the country be able to not only receive information, but also receive it in one of the two official languages we defend so passionately. That's probably what confuses me the most in this marathon. I definitely feel I am fighting a fundamental fight, that of freedom of speech. At the same time, I am aware that the real work this committee should be doing is somewhat on hold for a few hours. I think that, faced with such disastrous options, we have to be brave enough to establish priorities among the issues. I hope that we will get back to doing our work properly, so that we can once again defend the rights of people who belong to linguistic minorities across Canada.

    First, I want to get back to Hansard, the ultimate transparency tool. The following is stated:

    I assume that the list may grow over the next few years. The reason so many parliaments are equipped with this tool for information dissemination is certainly not to have in camera proceedings preventing people from reading the records of their proceedings.

    Now, I will talk about Hansard's origins:

    Imagine my surprise at reading that! I thought I could not have been more informed about the topic at hand. I was wondering whether this was a matter of going back to the future, or going from the future to the past, back to a parliamentarian culture where as many proceedings as possible would have been secret. That way, neither side's position would be heard.

    On the contrary, I am more of the opinion that, in a healthy democracy, truth emerges from the clash of ideas. That expression says it well. We should not be afraid of ideas clashing. We must certainly stop perceiving opinions that differ from ours as personal attacks. They are not personal attacks, just different ways of seeing an issue. It's a good thing those debates can be held publicly.

    I will continue reading about the history of Hansard:

    I hope that is still the case today.

    We have all played telephone at least once in our lives. We know what can become of information when it does not come from an official and reliable source. We know that, when information is passed on through word of mouth, it changes with every person.

    It is likely that, on days when we proceed in camera, members will not be able to speak publicly about the work done in committee. When it comes to public opinion, even the media, that may be enough to give rise to theories, since there would be no way to check what was really said. Everyone would have their own theory, and each would be just as plausible as the next, just as close to or as far from reality as the next. Hansard is the very remedy for this twisting of information. It is a credible, official and easy-to-find source.

    I will continue reading. I was just saying that a number of unofficial debate accounts were being published.

    I hope we have not gotten to that point.

    There was something colourful about that, but it doesn't mean I want to go back to that time.

    He was subject to a fine.

    A few centuries later, we are having the exact same debate—without the same fears, of course. I do not fear being imprisoned. I also don't think that anyone will be fined. At least I hope it will not come to that. Nevertheless, the right to free speech is still at the heart of our discussions this morning. It is of the utmost importance that, in a democratic society like ours, we not give up any ground gained in the fight for freedom. I will continue reading:

    I did not have time to go to the Library of Parliament to see whether there was a copy of all those publications, but I think it would be interesting to read a few excerpts to you some day, for cultural purposes.

    Now we're getting somewhere. You see that this word did not come out of nowhere. It came from a very important historic figure.

    So, historically, there is support for the argument I advanced earlier. We absolutely need an official tool everyone can rely on to know what truly happened and what was really said. We definitely need those texts so that there is no room for interpretation and so that the source is unquestionable, unless the speakers are unclear. Equipping ourselves with such a tool only to then prevent its use by saying that Hansard will not be available for any meetings of the Standing Committee on Official Languages because the proceedings were held in camera seems to be a procedural flaw, if not a discrepancy between our wishes and our actions.

    It's pretty interesting. I hope we won't revert to that practice either.

     That was an important historic moment. One day, a decision was made to use public money to fund the transcripts of proceedings, so that everyone could have access to them. It was also a matter of preventing the truth and reality from being revised or corrected as parliamentarians wished, under the claim that it was not exactly what they had said or meant to say. So, what is said is said. Pilate said that what has been written, has been written.

    Therefore, Hansard contains a reliable translation and account of our discussions and debates.

    Even then, the colours were portentous. It is anyone's guess as to why.

    That isn't very important, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

    Unfortunately, I feel that my words will take up a few pages in our minutes of proceedings for a negative reason, but also for a positive one. The negative reason is that we must fight this motion with all the civilly acceptable means available to us. That's a point of debate and not of battle. I repeat that the motion asking “that all committee business of the committee be conducted in camera” is completely unacceptable to us. My right to speech is probably the most civilized way to speak out not only for myself, but also for all like-minded people.

    To that end, it would be my pleasure to take a few minutes to read some letters sent by Canadians in response to the appeal I launched a week ago.

    I will continue reading. Let's look at an example of redundancy. By the way, I myself will possibly have made a few redundancies five or six hours into the marathon. I apologize to the illustrious assembly listening to me. However, you can be sure those redundancies will not appear in the Hansard, so those who want to follow the course of these epic proceedings will not have to suffer the repetition.

    That makes up for the memory lapses we often have, since there are 308 members. If each of the 308 members had a constituency that was one word long, there would be only 616 names to memorize. However, some ridings have four or five names, such as the Montmagny—L'Islet.... You see, I am already drawing a blank. Those names go on and on.

    An hon. member: Kamouraska

    Mr. Robert Aubin: That's it. Teamwork makes us stronger.

    I'm sorry, but your interjection may not appear in Hansard. Nevertheless, I thank you for it.

    I did my part.

    Political correctness is maintained.

    What about Canada's Hansard? Did we copy the UK Hansard? Is there anything about our Hansard that applies specifically to our objectives? Here's something about that:

    Mr. Chair, a point of order.

    Yes, Mr. Gourde?

    Mr. Chair, things have gone a bit far.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

    We have Mr. Harris' amendment before us. Therefore, we have to discuss it.

    Mr. Aubin, go ahead.

    Mr. Chair....

    Yes, Mr. Godin?

    I don't know whether you are accepting this point of order. I feel that what Mr. Aubin is saying is totally relevant to the motion, which is about in camera proceedings and the right to speak. I don't think this constitutes a point of order.

    I simply said we had to discuss the amendment. I did not say whether Mr. Aubin was doing that or not. I am just repeating the rules. We currently have Mr. Harris' amendment before us, so we have to discuss it.

    Mr. Aubin, go ahead.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think my comments are totally relevant to the amendment and the motion. I am repeating that because we might have lost track since I began speaking. My argument is very clear. I am trying to show as clearly as possible that I am at a loss. Our government says it wants a policy of openness. For that reason, it has equipped itself with clear instruments that promote this openness—Hansard being one of them. However, that same government is proposing a motion on in camera proceedings.

    I will continue:

    I will not read all the examples.

    In that case, if there is no....

    Mr. Chair....

    Yes, Mr. Gourde?

    Regarding openness, several Conservative members on this side of the table feel that a lot of time is being wasted. I would like us to move a unanimous motion to stop debating this motion, so that we can continue studying the roadmap, which I feel is very important. We still have many witnesses to hear from and submission deadlines to meet.

    I would like to have the committee's unanimous consent to adjourn the debate and continue our main study.

    Mr. Chair, a member must have the floor to move a motion.

    Yes, but he is asking for unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent?

    If he withdraws the motion, the result will be the same. He can move it again.

     I don't think a member can withdraw a motion. In order for this debate to collapse, we need a motion that the debate be adjourned. So if there's unanimous consent to move that motion, I'll grant the floor to Monsieur Gourde.

    There's no unanimous consent.

    Mr. Aubin, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As my grandfather used to say, it is always better to get the information straight from the horse's mouth. That requires our work to be public in most cases. I want to reiterate that the Standing Orders provide for the situations when we can proceed in camera, or when it is preferable to do so. But those situations are far removed from the motion we have been divided over for a few days.

    And if all those openness tools we have given ourselves are not enough—it is almost strange that an NDP member must talk about this, but I am doing so because, for once, I must recognize the Senate's wisdom—I will read a short section of the Rules of the Senate of Canada regarding committees. You will see that the wording is incredibly specific:

    There is an old saying we often use: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I assume that what's good for the upper house should be just as good for us. I repeat:

    Reference is made to sections (2) and (3), which I read to see what the exceptions were. Section (2) says the following:

    It is not automatic; we may decide.

    I think that the two last items I listed, (e) and (f), are totally relevant to Mr. Harris' amendment, where he asks:

    The committee must be given the agenda, become familiar with the meeting content and decide whether proceeding in camera is necessary.

    Section (2.1) says the following:

     That is less important. I don't think this is a conflict of interest situation.

    Section (3) says the following:

    So the rule is that the meetings are public, and the exception is that they can be in camera if the members agree. Once again, that is exactly what Mr. Harris' motion says. We will continue to have public meetings, unless a request to go in camera is accepted, “with the consent of at least one member of the opposition or a vote by committee at the start of any sitting of the Committee where committee business is to be discussed”.

    I will leave it at that. But I still think that it is important to draw attention to the wisdom of the upper chamber, whenever appropriate.

    I have also briefly looked through the papers in an attempt to find out whether the issue we have been grappling with for a number of hours is an issue only for the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Let me remind you that I came up with two hypotheses about our disagreement. The first one was that we are subject to this motion because the government party wants to impose an ideological vision. I was hoping this hypothesis was false and I still hope so. My second hypothesis was that this motion—and, as a result, this amendment—are the outcome of a procedural disagreement that we were not able to resolve among ourselves. So the solution was to take an arbitrary and high-handed approach to resolve it by moving a motion that could be summed up as “Shut your mouth”. I hope that is not the case either.

    As I looked through the papers...

    A point of order, Mr. Chair.

    Go ahead, Mr. Gourde.

    I hope that those words—more or less parliamentary—that came from Mr. Aubin will not be in the report.

    Yes, Mr. Bélanger?

    That is not a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    Let's all try to use some restraint language so we don't inflame our passions.

    I'll give the floor back to Monsieur Aubin.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I was not directing those words to anyone in particular. It was just a feeling that I had. If anyone around the table, whatever their party, was offended by those words, I would gladly take them back, but that does not change what I think.

    So let me go back to the newspapers I looked at. I found an article that I would like to share with you. It is very short. And it was published in Le Devoir on December 14, 2011. That is still quite a long time ago. The title is “Government wants committees in camera, complains opposition”. The article reads as follows:

    As an aside...

    A point of order.

    Go ahead, Mr. Trottier.

    Mr. Chair, he did not quote the motion correctly. It says “the Committee business of the Committee”. It is the same motion.

    That is not a point of order.

    I ask that it be corrected because it is not true.

    That deals more with the debate.

    So I am going to go back to Mr. Aubin.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    It seems ill advised to correct a journalist on the job. I am reading an article from Le Devoir. If it does not faithfully report the motion, there is nothing I can do about it.

    So I will continue to read what was published, as I said, in Le Devoir on December 14, 2011. I will read the last sentence again in order to pick up the thread:

    That's where I left off. As an aside, let me say that, as much as I have been rejecting my first hypothesis—and I reiterate that I still want to reject it—when I read this article and see that our committee is not the only one subject to such a motion, I must admit that my concerns are growing. That is the end of my digression. I will go back to the article:

    It seems to me that this is exactly what Mr. Menegakis' motion means: "That all Committee business of the Committee be conducted in camera.” If that’s the case, then I agree with the article:

    It seems to me there is a blatant lack of transparency.

    I will continue reading:

    We have to remember that national security was one of the top criteria not only for going in camera, but also for almost automatically choosing to go in camera. That's just common sense. And it seems pretty obvious that, although the issues the Standing Committee on Official Languages is dealing with are significant, we are not talking about national security.

    Let me go back to the article:

    Mr. Chair, this simple answer is very telling of how the culture of secrecy is trying to become established and certainly at the expense of our freedom of speech and the quality of our parliamentary work.

    I am going back to the article:

    That is the end of the quote from the article published in Le Devoir on December 14, 2011.

    In light of this article, there were a number of comments from the public, as is increasingly the case with blogs popping up everywhere. I will read you some of the comments in response to the article, because they give me the energy I need to keep on fighting. Actually, person by person and comment by comment, I have realized that our fight is just.

    Raymond Saint-Arnaud, a subscriber to Le Devoir, posted a comment on Wednesday, December 14, 2011 at 5:50 p.m., with the title “The Canadian parliamentary system is very sick”. This title is repeated as the first sentence: “The Canadian parliamentary system is very sick”. That is not my repetition, but Mr. Saint-Arnaud's. I would imagine that the idea behind the repetition was to reinforce it. I continue with Mr. Saint-Arnaud’s reply:

    As I said, it was signed Raymond Saint-Arnaud.

    This is what another subscriber wrote:

    You can draw your own conclusions.

    On the same day, Wednesday, December 14, 2011, NL said the following:

    Mr. Chair, I can honestly tell you that I don't agree with the comments in that reply. However, I think that it is a clear example of the shift that would take place if we were forced to go in camera and transcripts would no longer be available to check what really was said, what the person speaking actually thought. The information would not be consistent from one person to another.

    Let's see what Pierre Rousseau wrote on Wednesday, December 14, 2011. He titled his answer “Defenestration of democracy!!!”, original as it may be. I for one had trouble understanding it, but the following lines might make it clearer:

    I guess those last few words explain the title.

    Here is another reply called “Good old dictatorship”:

    If it was a joke, I would probably find it distasteful and I would not feel like laughing. The problem is that those types of comments are now publicized because people feel really wronged when it comes to their right to access to information. We obviously cannot expect all Canadians who follow politics a few minutes a day, or a few hours a week, to have a completely informed and defined opinion on all the issues at the core of Canadian politics. Imagine how things would be if they did not have access to a reliable source of information. I worry that this type of shift will become more pronounced and everyone will lose out.

    Mr. Guy Lafond suggests some sort of remedy:

    Pierre Coutu talks about a Canadian spring. It is the spring that we all await, but that is probably not going to come this morning. So we have to keep our hearts warm this Valentine's Day, since we cannot warm our bodies in a public square.

     A point of order, Mr. Chair.

    I ask that we suspend the proceedings for about 10 minutes to discuss.

    We've been asked to suspend the committee for

    five minutes, is that it?

    For 10 minutes.

    Is it the will of the committee to suspend the sitting for 10 minutes?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: We're suspended for 10 minutes.

     We're coming out of suspension.

    We are resuming the debate on Mr. Harris' amendment.

    Mr. Aubin, the floor is yours.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Before we continue, I would like to check something. It seems I have unanimous consent to move the following motion:

    If I have unanimous consent, I so move.

    Thank you.

    Is there unanimous consent to support this motion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: We will continue with the agenda. We have to discuss the future of the roadmap.

    Before the break, we heard from 30 witnesses, but there are 117 on the list in total.

    We have approximately 28 meetings before the summer break, which means 14 weeks. We have less than $5,000 left in the budget for this study. As chair, I may have to go before the Liaison Committee to ask for more money to continue this study.

    As chair, I need direction from the committee on two issues. I need to know how many sittings you would like to keep and what types of witnesses you would like to hear from.

    Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    If we look at the number of witnesses we have heard from and at the number of meetings that we have had, I think we have to look at when we need to complete this study.

    I suggest we tighten everything up and we prepare to hear from witnesses who would allow us to get this done. For example, we could hear from departmental representatives based on our needs. We have never gone over the list of witnesses together. I have personally looked at the list of witnesses, which was very long, and I have reduced it to 22 witnesses. We could even reduce it further.

    But we should hear from people from departments, like ministers, who should come and tell us their points of view on the roadmap.

    In terms of communities, we have met with all the key people. Of course, they are all key people, but we have to draw the line somewhere.

    I think we should hear from certain people and finalize the report on the roadmap.

    Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

     Then we will hear from Mr. Trottier.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I agree with my colleague Mr. Godin. I suggest that after next week's break, we focus on hearing from the remaining witnesses in the three or four weeks that follow.

    I agree that those witnesses should come from the agencies and departments that are part of the roadmap. I am particularly interested in knowing where they are in their summative evaluation with the communities that they were supposed to have completed by the end of January or the end of February, if I'm not mistaken. This is an important step in the evaluation of the roadmap.

    Since our next block of work occurs in March, we will have the results of those evaluations required by the roadmap. At that point, we have to get to work on a report. I do not necessarily want to impose this in a draconian way, but our analyst could perhaps begin the report and, when we get back from the other break, we could come back in camera to study the report as required.

    I don't need to hear from representatives of the 16 or 17 agencies or departments, just the main ones. I had also asked for a document and I hope that it will be available soon. I wanted to get a report of the expenses made in the three first years of the roadmap. Three years are now complete, and the fourth finishes at the end of March. We could at least have the report of the actual expenses for the first three years of the roadmap. Perhaps that would let us determine more precisely which departments or agencies we want to hear representatives from.

    So, if that's the way we are going, you will have my full cooperation.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Trottier, the floor is yours. Next is Mr. Aubin.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think that the suggestions made by Mr. Godin and Mr. Bélanger are reasonable. For our part, we have heard a good sample of the groups who have received funds through the roadmap. We could perhaps add some interviews with other witnesses so that we have a more complete picture of those who have received funds.

    As to the departments and agencies that have participated in the roadmap, it is important to have a sample. As Mr. Bélanger said, it is not necessary that all departments be involved in the evaluation, but we should look at it along two axes. There is the vertical axis, that is to say the departments that have distributed the funds, and there is a horizontal axis—which more or less corresponds to the format of the roadmap—meaning the horizontal involvement within the departments. We have to hear witnesses give us their point of view.

    Thank you.

    Mr. Aubin has the floor. Next is Mr. Gourde.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    First I want to thank and congratulate everyone for getting back on cordial terms. It feels good. Thank you.

    I agree with what has been said previously. To me, it seems important that our priority be to meet representatives from the departments so that we have the clarification we need to read and understand the upcoming mid-mandate report and make appropriate projections for the continuation of this roadmap.

    Only agencies and departments can give us the additional information that we are presently lacking. Of course, if we had unlimited money and unlimited time, we would be able to hear from other organizations, but I still think that we have done a relatively good job of looking after the interests of each of the minority communities in the country.

    Your turn, Mr. Gourde.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Given that it is Valentine's Day, I am also happy that we have reached an agreement so amicably.

    I am in favour of hearing from representatives from the departments, and I think that it would be right and proper to do so. But I would like to make sure that some groups who have not come to meet with us feel free to do so after the statements from the departments. We would not want them to feel left aside given that they have indicated a desire to come and provide us with testimony.

    I know that the list of witnesses is quite long, but perhaps they will not all indicate a desire to testify. After hearing the testimony from departmental representatives, perhaps some will have had their questions answered. But others might have things to present to us. I will leave it to your discretion to judge who can come and who cannot.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Gourde.

    Your turn, Mr. Godin.

    I agree with Mr. Gourde. But I understand that the list was prepared by each political party. If we ask 100 people if they want to come, they will all say yes. I don't think that's what we want. Of course I am in favour of hearing from those who really want to come.

    I have an idea. Perhaps we should adjourn the sitting and everyone should go and take a good look at the list. On Thursday morning, we will have another meeting and we will see what progress we have made. We will see how much we can reduce it. We must not have too many of them if we want to produce the report. We must remember that this committee has been working on this since September. We have to get the job done. If we go by the list of 100 witnesses, we are going to be hearing from them until June. That makes no sense. I've never seen a study last so long.

    Anyway, I do not know if Mr. Bélanger shares my opinion. We can wait and see what he has to say, but I think we are going to have to focus on certain names. Perhaps Thursday would be a good day for that.

    I think Mr. Godin’s idea is a good one. It is a little late to invite witnesses for Thursday; that's in two days. If we meet on Thursday, we can ask the clerk to prepare a schedule for the three weeks after the break. We can then talk about the kinds of witnesses that we want to invite.

    Go ahead, Mr. Bélanger.

    Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of things.

    In response to Monsieur Gourde's suggestion and Mr. Godin's comments, I would suggest that we consider notifying two groups, QCGN, which represents the anglophone minority, and the FCFA, which represents the francophone minority, that we might call them back after we've heard from the agencies and departments. QCGN, incidentally, has asked to come back. I don't know if you've seen that letter, Mr. Chairman.

    This way we don't need to go to the 100 or so other witnesses, because these are the two umbrella groups that represent our linguistic minorities across the country. I think we could ask them to do that work after they've heard the agencies and departments that are coming before us.

    Furthermore, we are in the nation's capital. Some departments might be prepared to come Thursday. I would hope that we would check this out so that we don't spend the entire day Thursday just deciding what we're going to do for the following three weeks. If it's not possible, fine. Remember, though, that we presumably have departments and agencies coming in from this region, which means we won't have to go back to the liaison committee to get more funds.

    I'm going to pass the floor to Monsieur Gourde and then to Mr. Harris. I need to get some direction here. I'm getting two different ideas of where we should go.

    Mr. Gourde, do you prefer Mr. Godin’s suggestion for Thursday, or Mr. Bélanger’s? I can invite the witnesses from the Department of Canadian Heritage and the other departments, or I can decide that the Thursday meeting will be in order to discuss a schedule.

    Mr. Chair, I am sure that you are going to do everything you can in order to have witnesses on Thursday, but no one expects the impossible.

    What I'll do then is ask the clerk to make his best effort to invite witnesses for Thursday. What I will also do at Thursday's meeting is distribute a schedule of proposed witnesses and time slots for the next four or five weeks, so that by the end of March we can conclude this study and have a discussion of the draft report. At Thursday's meeting, if you have input on the schedule and you'd like to see something slightly different, just come to me after the meeting and tell me what you'd like to see. We'll try to incorporate those suggestions and changes.

    Monsieur Godin.

    I have no objection to hearing from witnesses on Thursday, if it is possible.

     In the meantime, however, we should all look at our list so that we are able to submit names. If the witnesses do not come, we can use Thursday’s entire meeting. If they do, and if they finish early enough for us to have time left, we could get back to work and look at the list. We could also talk to each other about what we want, what you want, and maybe reduce the list as much as we can.

    You can talk to me about it.

     If there's no further business of the committee, thank you for the direction.

    This meeting is adjourned.