:
We know that the House is recessed next week; this week is already over. Let's suppose the minister is available when we return; that means she would be coming in two weeks. Depending on our schedule, we had planned perhaps to table the report on the plan sooner than that. If the minister's comments must be part of the plan, do we delay tabling or what?
We're studying a plan; we're trying to develop a report, suggesting that what the minister says be included in the report. We're developing the report before having heard the minister. We've already prepared a report before hearing the final witnesses. In this case, I'd like to know whether we really need witnesses before drafting the report. We're finishing writing the report before even hearing the witnesses. Moreover, some very important witnesses appeared here when the report was already written.
Are we summoning witnesses for a real reason or just to fill up time? If that's the case, we're wasting our time. If it isn't the case, we'll be forced to suspend the report until we've met with the minister. I don't really feel comfortable approving the report or working on it when we haven't finished hearing our witnesses. Furthermore, last week, Mr. Bélanger said that we would probably need a kind of organization chart to determine who does what in all this.
Was that you who talked about the organization chart, Mr. Bélanger?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This discussion started because some committee members weren't sure who had this responsibility. Mr. Godin therefore suggested that we invite the minister.
Now we're talking about witnesses, and I'd like to know whether we have to hear more and, if so, why. I would like to move that we invite
[English]
the Public Service Agency of Canada. We had them here.
[Translation]
The Canada Public Service Agency is responsible for the general management and review of official languages for all the departments.
[English]
So they actually have very specific official language responsibilities, particularly when it comes to the implementation of official languages within the departments, within the public service. I have a couple of concerns. The first is that if the minister comes, my colleagues may ask many questions about the official languages plan, what's coming and what are the priorities. Of course, she won't be able to comment on that. In our Speech from the Throne we have reiterated
[Translation]
our commitment to the action plan. However, the minister won't be able to go into details. That's why Bernard Lord conducted those consultations across the country and why we decided to conduct our own on the priorities, successes and challenges involved in implementating the last version of the action plan, which is currently being prepared.
[English]
My concern is that if we have the minister come, she will not be able to comment on the specifics of le renouvellement du plan d'action. I actually think the Public Service Agency of Canada is the one responsible, for example, for issuing directives that give effect to parts IV, V, and VI of the Official Languages Act. They are responsible for recommending regulations.
So in terms of the hands-on portion, we spoke about asking to see if we could see an organizational chart, and I think there's value in the research analyst putting together an organization chart to basically show the key players, where they fit into the implementation of the Official Languages Act within the government, and then we can have a discussion about the roles and responsibilities to make sure we invite the appropriate people. I don't think any of us wants to lose a meeting by inviting someone who will not necessarily be able to answer our questions in the detail that we will be asking.
For example, as I said, the Public Service Agency of Canada has a lot of direct hands-on responsibilities with respect to the implementation of official languages. By having them come, coupled with having the researcher put together a chart that we can look at to see who the key players are, what their roles and responsibilities are...if we still have misunderstandings, if we still have questions about who is responsible for implementing what, then that will allow us to be able to focus our questions on the appropriate person.
Mr. Chair, that's what I would like to recommend. It's part of debating Monsieur Godin's motion, but I would like to discuss this, having this agency come in, because I think they would offer valuable information.
Let me just confirm this. Was the Public Service Agency here before?
:
Then maybe we either weren't asking the right questions or we were not pressing home what she is responsible for. I didn't hear anyone say, “You're not answering my question. Your responsibilities are this, this, and this, and I want you to comment specifically on this, this, and this.”
So if we had questions of a particular witness and they were not asked or clarified, even if they appeared before the committee previously...I think this is Monsieur Godin's argument. Monsieur Godin's argument for having the minister come back is that we want to
[Translation]
clarify questions. We're currently conducting a study, so more direct questions must be asked regarding our concerns, our lack of knowledge and understanding of certain matters.
So we must do that with the Public Service Agency, a representative of which appeared here, just as the minister also appeared before this committee. If we want to ask more specific questions, we could put them
[English]
to the Canada Public Service Agency. We have an opportunity.
I think this is a better use of the committee's time. They have specific responsibilities when it comes to the implementation of what it is we're looking at—the very questions we were asking at the end of the last meeting.
:
I received the motion, which is very simple. I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that, at the last meeting on February 12, Mr. Rodrigue Paré stated the following:
I would like to clarify one point. In the original action plan in 2003, the Commission was responsible for everything, because that was before the agency was created. Originally, in the Action Plan, the Commission was to receive $38.6 million to handle all training, bilingual capability in full. Subsequently, a portion or all of the those budgets were transferred to the agency when it was created in late 2003. The agency itself then transferred some of those budgets for the creation of the school. That's why there may have been some confusion in the mandates.
There lies the problem. In 2003, I wasn't here, but they were. We could ask some committee members—Mr. Godin, for example, our expert in the field—to testify. Mr. Godin knows everything that has happened since 2003, whereas I don't know. The report that is made public is only at the draft stage. I think Mr. Paré is right. He focused the problem precisely on that.
The problem stems from the fact that something happened in 2003. The Liberals were with the NDP, the NDP told the Liberals nothing, and the Liberals told the NDP nothing. That changed at the time of the official commission.
I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that I agree with Mr. Godin. We are at a point where we must prepare a report. I've already read this report. I hoped to be able to discuss it more quickly today. The last witnesses really surprised me. It was mainly Mr. Donald Lemaire who spoke. I thought those people were coming simply to confirm what we had observed and to tell us that we were good-looking and nice. However, he said that there was nothing. I think Mr. Godin is right. We have to know exactly where we're headed. If we have to prepare a draft and recommendations, they have to make sense so they don't wind up on shelf 13, as it's called.
I'm a member of Parliament, as you all are. After the next election we may all be here still, maybe not. It's important to leave something that makes sense. Some files appear to be in disorder. I'm not responsible for that disorder, because I wasn't here. Perhaps Mr. Bélanger, who has been here much longer than I, can explain to me why things changed in 2003 and why that should have been here. The Liberal Party definitely had to intervene at that time. Why have we gotten to this point? Why does Mr. Lemaire appear to be saying today that, because of this dispersion of authority...
Mr. Bélanger has raised some good points. He asked why it shifted from the Treasury Board to another place. As Mr. Godin said, everyone was monitoring the Treasury Board. Subsequently, it was the Privy Council Office's turn. We have to know exactly where we're headed. It's a question of governance.
We are parliamentarians; we aren't the government. We perform another function elsewhere, but here we are parliamentarians. We have to tell Parliament that the change it made in 2003 wasn't right. That doesn't mean that it will change matters, but at least we'll have put our finger on the problem. We're playing with approximately $800 million, which represents more than three-quarters of a billion dollars. I'll never earn that much money in my life. That's a lot of money, and it's a lot of workers' money.
We absolutely have to find an answer to this question, and perhaps look more deeply into this case and find out why this changed. Perhaps they were right; I don't know, and I wasn't here. Perhaps Mr. Bélanger could give us an explanation because perhaps he was a member of the Official Languages Committee.
Mr. Godin, who is here on a full-time basis, could tell us what happened in 2003. We should know. That's why I draw your attention to the fact that I think the motion is appropriate, but I think we've created an opening. I wondered whether it was right or not. I think it's right, but perhaps we should go further, but quickly, and avoiding discussing too many matters.
One question is legitimate, and it's on my mind. Why did it change in 2003? I want to know why as well. Was it a question of governance, to save money, because it was better, because more people were receiving instructions? I don't know, but I want to know. The people who are most knowledgeable about the organization chart could inform us. Once again, we come back to the damned organization chart that we should have before us. I really would have like to have it so we know where to place all our people. We've given out $800 million; I want to know how this works, how the money is distributed, to whom, in order to be sure that our fellow citizens, who will have to face the consequences of our decisions, can know whether those amounts were well spent.
Mr. Godin has said it from the start: he thinks the money is here, but is not necessarily well spent, or that it is misdirected. That's a problem. He's entitled to know, as I am, because we are parliamentarians. From what I know, the minister, Ms. Verner, wasn't here in 2000, nor was I either, nor many people who are here now. Perhaps Messrs. Bélanger and Godin could further clarify matters for us. Something happened and he's referring to it today, in 2008. Why didn't he do that in 2003? I don't know. Perhaps it would be valid to see whether we can reopen the debate before this document that we have to table in Parliament is finished, so that we can have a proper view.
I feel uncomfortable. Mr. Godin's question is very legitimate; I support him in that respect, but is Minister Verner the right person or the only person? I wonder. I don't think she's the one and only person. Perhaps we should also hear from former Liberal ministers so they can tell us why they changed that in 2003. Perhaps they had a very good reason. That's what I want to know.
:
I agree with Mr. Petit that this is a question of governance. It's in fact the question that concerns us. I also completely support Mr. Simard's comments. We seem to want to identify a problem, or at least put the finger on the problem. I believe that transferring the Official Languages Secretariat from the Privy Council Office to the Department of Canadian Heritage is at the source of that problem.
I agree with Mr. Simard on that question as well. When I was the minister responsible for official languages and he was my parliamentary secretary, the Secretariat had a mandate to coordinate and oversee what went on with the implementation of the Action Plan for Official Languages.
I'll explain why I think Mr. Godin's motion is valid.
We monitored what went on. Now that the Secretariat has been transferred—and that's a decision by Mr. Harper's government—the problem nevertheless boils down to a question of governance. The person responsible, and her title indicates that, is Ms. Verner. She is the Minister of Canadian Heritage, but we're not inviting her in that capacity, and the minister for the status of women, and we're not inviting her in that capacity either, but she is also minister responsible for official languages. She can bring whomever she wants when she comes to appear, people from the Public Service Agency, from the Privy Council Office or from her Secretariat, whomever. We're clearly seeking to know how that coordination is currently done in the public service.
As far as I know, there is one player we haven't even spoken to, and that's the Treasury Board. From what I know, it is responsible for establishing policy. I think it's entirely legitimate for Ms. Verner to come and testify, not next week, but the following week, I hope, on the way her government is taking charge of that governance, of that coordination question.
Ultimately, we could invite the Prime Minister, given that it was he who decided to transfer the Official Languages Secretariat to the Department of Canadian Heritage. I think that, for the moment, inviting the minister responsible is a respectful gesture, in that it shows that we understand the Cabinet hierarchy and that we are speaking to the person responsible for that governance. That's a response to both Mr. Lemieux's remarks and Mr. Petit's questions.
Mr. Godin's motion is perfectly legitimate, utterly reasonable, and I think we should adopt it.
:
I'd like to emphasize that I didn't interrupt the others earlier.
If we invite the minister, it's because we want to ask her questions. If she is the minister for official languages, she must be competent in that area. That's why we're asking her to appear. Unless she doesn't want to come. That's what I'm wondering. If she doesn't appear, either she doesn't want to come, or she is incompetent. I don't know. I don't doubt that she's competent, but I want her to appear, and I think Mr. Godin's motion is entirely appropriate.
We heard witnesses last week. I'm not an expert in the field, but I observed that they did not answer questions because either they didn't know the answer, or that wasn't within their responsibility or duties. If we summon other witnesses to appear and they tell us the same thing, I don't see how that will be helpful. We're going to waste our time. I think the minister could give us some clarification on these questions. That's why I'm in favour of the idea that she should appear.
By the way, the word “argent” is masculine, not feminine. I note that the feminine has been used for a while now. Furthermore, Mr. Lemieux said that we were going to ask “straight” questions. I don't know what he means by that, but whatever the case may be, we're going to ask the minister “straight” questions.
:
I'm going to try to be brief, Mr. Chairman.
I've never seen this in the history of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It's true that this is a committee that normally shouldn't be political. Since 1998, every time we've wanted to ask a minister to appear before the committee, we've never argued as we are doing now.
Mr. Lemieux said that the questions will have to be direct and specific. Mr. Chairman, I won't present my questions to Mr. Lemieux the day before to determine whether they are good or not. I'm going to ask my questions, allow the minister to answer them and see what comes out of them. She'll answer the way she wants, and I'll feel good about the questions that I've asked her. I don't have to ask anyone whether my question is good or not. I can live with my question and with the answer.
We're inviting the minister responsible for official languages to the committee. She may be accompanied by whomever she wants to assist her in answering the questions ask her. That's just normal. I must admit that Mr. Gravel is right to ask whether she is competent, because every time we've asked a minister to appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we've run into difficulties. This isn't the first time that has happened; one need only read the blues from our other meetings.
A little respect, please. We want to have the minister appear before the committee; let's vote on this question and it will be resolved.
I want to just make a few comments. With respect to Mr. Godin, he says he's never seen this. That's because under your excellent leadership, Mr. Chair, we are getting some format to these meetings. The way it used to happen, certainly in the first session when I was here, all of sudden, 30 seconds before the end of a meeting, Monsieur Godin or another member would come up with an idea. Maybe it was in a motion, sometimes not, and all of a sudden that would just carry. That would be our next order of business. There was very little debate or no debate.
Under your leadership, at least people have to put forward a motion. This is what happened at the last meeting: with 30 seconds to go, Monsieur Godin said he wanted the minister, and I think he expected it to carry. But he had to be reminded that there are rules associated with this committee. One of the rules is that you deposit a motion and the motion is open to debate.
The other point I want to make is that the minister has always appeared. Every time the committee has asked a minister to appear, the minister has appeared. The minister has been open to questions. The minister has given good presentations. The minister has addressed the questions asked of her. So I reject what Mr. Godin is insinuating. Right now we're talking about his motion, and within his motion we're also discussing— because debate has to be as open as possible—which witnesses would contribute to the finalization of this report of our study on official languages.
So this is where the debate is. This is not wasting time. This is debate. We live in a democracy. This committee operates under democratic principles, which means MPs have the opportunity to speak, and I thank you for respecting the speakers' list because there are MPs on your speakers' list who want to address this issue and they should be given the opportunity to do so.
With respect to Monsieur Gravel, yes, he is new, and perhaps he's not used to democratic debate. He, too, calls it a waste of time. In every committee when there's a motion on the floor, members are allowed to debate the motion. They're allowed to express themselves, and they can take two minutes or they can take ten minutes. That's their right as MPs, especially when we're representing the people who elected us. It's not wasting time. It's not inutile. It serves a useful function. That's the way the committee works.
I'm glad to see we're having some debate in this committee about a motion. Oftentimes, as I mentioned, Mr. Chair, we don't have debate, just a lot of arm waving, a lot of raising of voices, and then all of a sudden something, our
[Translation]
paths appear before us. How did we get here?
[English]
So I'm actually glad to see we're following some process and we're having some discussion and debate about, for example, the important work of witnesses, who the witnesses should be, and why they should be invited or not invited. As I mentioned before, MPs should be allowed the latitude of debate. That's the way it works around here. It's the same in the House. In the House you have a certain amount of time to express yourself, and you can be very narrow in your comments or you can be wider in your comments. But allow MPs the opportunity to express themselves.
Chair, I don't know why he feels threatened by that. I don't know why Monsieur Godin feels threatened by that. Why are they both up in arms about what we're discussing?
To go back to the issue of who could come in front of this committee, I'd just like to remind committee members that in 2003—so this is under the previous government—the Canada Public Service Agency was created and the Treasury Board Secretariat transferred its responsibilities to the Public Service Agency. The Public Service Agency is responsible, for example, for very hands-on types of implementation decisions and policy directives for establishing policies with respect to official languages within the public service. So if we have specific questions about who makes decisions—who's responsible for what, how does this work in this department, how does that translate over there, how is this being rolled out in the public service—we should be talking to the Canada Public Service Agency. It also has the responsibility to issue directives under parts IV, V, and VI of the Official Languages Act.
So if it can issue directives, I think these are the questions we have. This is the question Monsieur Godin raised at the end of the last meeting. The question he raised was that we're not sure who is responsible for what. I'm saying the Public Service Agency has very direct responsibilities. Yes, ask them direct questions. If they were here before and you didn't get the answers you wanted, well, I would say you either didn't ask your questions properly or you didn't obligate the witness to answer your specific questions, if you asked those specific questions.
The Public Service Agency also has a responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of its policies, so not only is it responsible for implementing, but the feedback loop is there as well. It is supposed to be evaluating the successes and the challenges, the weaknesses, the strengths, and then it would revise its policies to better implement the Official Languages Act within the public service. To me, that's where the questions need to be directed, and that's where we want to have our debate.
There are other things, Mr. Chair. While we're talking about this study we're doing, I'd like to raise an issue that's of concern to me, and that is that I have a hard time understanding something. We're working here as a committee, and we try to work together as MPs, but there are definitely parties at work here, right? The Liberal Party has a particular position on official languages and on the Official Languages Act and how it should be implemented, as does the NDP, as does the Bloc, as do the Conservatives. We're not always aligned perfectly. We try to accomplish our work, but I must admit that recently I've certainly become confused about where the Liberal Party is coming from. It actually affects the work on this committee, because we have four MPs here from the Liberal Party who are expressing the point of view, I suppose, of the Liberal Party as it applies to the Official Languages Act, as it applies to the plan d'action and its priority across Canada.
One of the things I would like to bring up are the comments concerning Justin Trudeau, because I feel there is confusion here between what he has said and what the members across are saying. I would like to discuss whether he might be an appropriate witness to bring in front of the committee because of some of the things he said. I want to remind the committee of some of the things he has said.
They're shaking their heads because it's a bit embarrassing for the Liberal Party, because there is this huge disconnect that is causing confusion. One of the areas--
:
Justin Trudeau is a member of the Liberal Party and a Liberal candidate.
[Translation]
He's a star candidate, well known across Canada, and he has said some embarrassing things.
I would like us to invite Mr. Justin Trudeau to this committee so we can clarify his position relative to that of committee members and that of the Liberal Party.
[English]
It's not because he's Justin Trudeau. He has made some significant comments regarding bilingualism and official languages. One of the things he has said, for example, is that unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones are lazy if they do not pursue bilingualism.
This is important, because I don't understand the Liberal position on official languages. On the one hand they are saying here in committee that they support official languages, which is supposed to respect the choices of unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones—
:
No. I will address this, Chair.
At the beginning of the meeting Monsieur Godin tabled a motion, and we've allowed discussion on who should come in front of this committee pertaining to the work we're doing. No one cut me off when I was talking about the Canada Public Service Agency. I didn't see arms going up and people saying, “Oh that's irrelevant. Cut him off, get him back on track.” We discussed bringing in other witnesses. I haven't heard push-back on that.
We are trying to finalize our work on official languages as the official languages committee. As part of the discussion on the motion, and in keeping with what we've been discussing all morning, I'm proposing a potential witness, and all of a sudden they're upset about this one. Why didn't they cut me off about the Canada Public Service Agency when I brought that up?
In accordance with the way the debate has been managed this morning, I'm raising a valid point that the Liberal members here advocate for official languages. They say they respect the choice of unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones to be served in their own languages, and we're not to pressure them to pursue bilingualism, for example.
But we have a star candidate. He's not an unknown; he's a candidat vedette. There's even talk of his running for the leadership at some future point. He made headlines across Canada with his comments insulting unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones across Canada. The Bloc should be interested in this because they—
:
Okay, here's a fundamental concern I have.
We're putting together a report for the plan d'action, right? Commenting on the future plan d'action, our government, in its Speech from the Throne, said that it was committed to implementing a plan d'action. So we've called in front of us certain witnesses, and topics have come up—for example, education. One of the discussions in education is that we're talking about offering French training, we're talking about offering English language instruction, we're talking about offering immersion-type programs. What I'm saying is that I don't understand the Liberal position right now, and it's obviously going to have an impact on the report.
What we are discussing is this finalization of the report. What I'm saying is that there's confusion, because here in front of the committee we have members saying, you know, we respect the choice of unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones to pursue their language choices. But we have a star Liberal candidate speaking publicly, in front of 400 professors this time, in news that is carried across the country, saying he doesn't support that. So I'd like some clarification.
When we get to certain sections—
:
What I will say, Mr. Chair, is that I will table a motion with the committee, with 48 hours' notice, to pursue this later. I think it's an important point, and I think the Liberals have to clarify their position with respect to official languages, so I will give consideration to tabling a motion.
With respect to the specific wording of this motion, as Monsieur Godin was kind enough to have it read out again, if we want to have the minister come.... I believe the motion started because you wanted the minister to come to explain how official languages is managed within the government and its governmental departments. I think we should modify this motion to identify that.
One of the concerns I mentioned before is that there may be questions from opposition members that come up about the action plan, the priorities, what Monsieur Bernard Lord has said, what advice she is receiving, what her plan is moving forward--and she won't be able to answer those questions.
If Mr. Godin wants to be fair in allowing the minister to prepare appropriately for the committee, then it can't just be a wide-open blank cheque when she comes, which is the way in which the motion is worded right now. I think it would be advantageous if the motion were amended to say what we are going to be asking her, what we are going to be talking to her about. If we're going to be talking to her about—
:
It's not about that. With all due respect, Mr. Godin is quite capable and knows how to manoeuvre in the context of a committee. I don't have that skill. He knows how to do it. He knows that, if the reason why the minister must appear is not limited, they'll go fishing. That way, he hopes to catch a fish or a whale, just to make the headlines. That's not what we want. As parliamentarians, we want to ensure that the amount allocated to the public service is well spent. That's our role as parliamentarians, regardless of the party to which we belong. We have to delimit the framework of the minister's testimony solely based on the report.
As Mr. Godin said, she will have an hour and a quarter to read the blues and see what was said. Depending on the questions that are put to her, she will be able to go into details. This is a question of governance, not just application. It shouldn't be forgotten that we may frequently hear the answer, “I don't know.”
Mr. Bélanger said he had been minister of official languages. He probably knows exactly how that was applied. Mr. Simard, who was his parliamentary secretary, would be an excellent witness. Those two men know how things were done. An error may have been committed at that time—in good faith, it's understood.
I'm speaking on behalf of the minister, without having to testify for her. She cannot come and testify about subjects she does not know. Messrs. Simard and Bélanger would be the most interesting witnesses. They would be able to explain to us what happened, where the errors were made and what was subsequently done. That would be interesting. The minister can only say that she has read the blues and that, in the current situation, this is about governance. I agree with Mr. Bélanger on this point: it is indeed a governance issue. However, governance is politics. We are inviting the minister in her capacity as minister, and in the context of her political role, in order to find out where we are headed. I would like the debate to focus solely on the report that we intend to table. I wouldn't want to go beyond that framework.
I've just learned that Mr. Godin does not want to be forced to submit his questions in advance. I understand why: he wants to go fishing. It's as simple as that. That's what I don't want to see happen. Mr. Godin is an excellent parliamentarian, who knows how to manoeuvre well.