LANG Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Official Languages

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 12, 2004

1105

The Clerk of the Committee (Marc-Olivier Girard)

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

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Clerk

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC)

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Clerk

Le greffier

1110

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Clerk

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)

The Clerk

The Chair (The Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.))

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

1115

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1120

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

1125

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1130

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Bernard Patry

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

1135

The Clerk

The Chair

The Clerk

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Clerk

Mr. Bernard Patry

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.)

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Christian Jobin

1140

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC)

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Derek Lee

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1145

The Chair

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Bernard Patry

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

The Chair

Mr. Rahim Jaffer

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

1150

The Chair

The Clerk

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Official Languages

NUMBER 001

3rd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 12, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[Translation]

The Clerk of the Committee (Marc-Olivier Girard): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, honourable members of the committee. I see we have a quorum. We can now proceed to elect the chair and vice-chairs of the committee.

[English]

Once the elections of chair and vice-chairs are completed, I will invite the newly elected chair to preside over the meeting.

So for the position of chair,

[Translation]

Are there any nominations?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Don Boudria.

The Clerk: Mr. Bellemare nominates Mr. Boudria. Are there other nominations?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): I have a question.

The Clerk: Go ahead.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have no problem with Mr. Boudria, but I would like the clerk to tell me something, since I cannot ask the chairman. Pursuant to section 43 of the Official Languages Act, if memory serves, Heritage Canada is the department which coordinates and ensures the development of official language communities. The legislative assistant and senior policy advisor for official languages at Heritage Canada is Mr. Boudria's son.

Is this situation permissible? If it is, I have no problem with it, but I wanted to ask the question.

The Clerk: Mr. Sauvageau, I am here to preside over the election of the chair. Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question; I am not in a position to do so. So, once the chair has been elected, perhaps you could put the question to that person, and we will see what the answer will be at that point.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But after the election...

The Clerk: I am a procedural expert, but I cannot answer that question, unfortunately.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I wouldn't like to make an inaccurate comparison, and I would not like Mr. Boudria to take this personally, but if, for instance, I do something illegal and check to see afterwards whether what I did was legal or not, it is too late: I did what I did. If we elect Mr. Boudria as chairman and if he tells us afterwards that he cannot be chair, it seems to me that that will pose a problem. So, I'm raising the matter now, in order to find out...

The Clerk: Perhaps we can raise the matter in a few moments. I must tell you that I am not empowered to hear points of order or anything of the kind; I am here to preside over the election of the chair and vice-chairs. So I'm going to let the future chairman or chairwoman of the committee settle these matters.

Is that all right?

So, Mr. Boudria had been nominated. The motion that is before the committee is the following:

[English]

that Mr. Don Boudria be elected chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I support that, but conditionally; we must study...

You can't accept that?

The Clerk: No, unfortunately. I am sorry.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: There is a technical problem.

The Clerk: You heard the motion that is before the committee. Are the members of the committee in favour of the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Clerk: Now we can proceed to the election of the vice-chair on the opposition side. Are there any nominations for the first vice-chair?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, CPC): I nominate Rahim Jaffer.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I nominate Yvon Godin.

The Clerk: Mr. Sauvageau nominates Mr. Godin.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: He was vice-chair of the committee, incidentally.

The Clerk: There are two candidates. Pursuant to Standing Order 106, since more than one candidate has been nominated, we will elect a vice-chair by secret ballot. With your permission, I will briefly explain the procedure. My colleague, who is a procedural clerk, and I will walk along each side of the table to give you your ballots. We will then collect them.

[English]

Again, after members have written their choice on the ballots and have deposited them in the box at the table, I will count the votes and announce the successful candidate. If no member receives a majority of the ballots cast, I will conduct another ballot. Is that clear for everyone?

[Translation]

The candidates are Mr. Godin and Mr. Jaffer.

[Secret ballot vote]

Le greffier: Ladies and gentlemen, I believe Mr. Yvon Godin has been elected vice-chair of the committee for the opposition.

Á (1110)

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

[English]

The Clerk: Now we can proceed to the election of the vice-chair on the government side. Are there any nominations for the second vice-chair?

[Translation]

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Simard.

The Clerk: Mr. Patry nominates Mr. Simard. Are there any other nominations?

[English]

Nominations are now closed.

[Translation]

The motion before the committee is that Mr. Simard be elected Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Are the members of the committee in agreement?

(Motion agreed to)

The Clerk: I now invite Mr. Boudria to take the chair.

I wish you all the best in your work.

The Chair (The Hon. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, Lib.)): Good day, dear colleagues.

First, I want to thank all of you for the confidence you have shown me by electing me as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Unfortunately for me, it is a committee that may be shorter-lived than committees usually are, because we don't know when the election will take place, of course.

In the meantime, the fact remains that it is our duty to ensure the government's accountability, not only with regard to what it does for minority official language communities, but also with regard to the promotion of official languages in general.

This morning I had the opportunity to have an informal chat with Ms. Dyane Adam. As Ms. Adam knows there are several new members on the committee, she would be quite willing to give us a briefing or an information session, if that is our wish. In any case, when we have chosen the members of our steering committee, we can decide whether this is something we want to do.

The only other thing I would like to say before we go on to routine business is that I think we should begin our work without too much delay; that is to say, we should begin sitting rather quickly, in light of the fact that we may have limited time to do the work of this parliamentary committee. So I think it would be better to get going sooner rather than later. Let us begin introducing our routine motions, if you will.

The first routine motion is that the Committee retain the services of one or more analyst(s) from the Library of Parliament, as needed, to assist the Committee in its work, at the discretion of the Chair.

Does someone wish to move the motion?

Mr. Christian Jobin (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, Lib.): I move the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: The second motion has to do with the distribution of documents. The draft motion would read “That the clerk be authorized to distribute only documents available in both official languages”. That would be moved by Mr. Godin.

Monsieur Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: The motion stating that the clerk will only be authorized to distribute documents available in both official languages does pose a problem for me.

Should a French-speaking or English-speaking Canadian come here to make a presentation as an individual, I think that he or she should not be obliged to present his or her document in both official languages, as that person might not have the means to do so. I see the need for this rule for national or provincial organizations or for government institutions, but in the case of individuals, we should allow oral presentations to be made in either French or English.

Á (1115)

The Chair: I'm going to invite the clerk to respond, but first, if I remember correctly—and it has been a long time since I sat on a parliamentary committee, for reasons that are known to you—the practice was that the clerk did not have the right to distribute documents that were in one official language only. However, if a person took the initiative of distributing documents in one language only, that could be done. What this motion is designed to prevent is the rather unusual situation where a committee decides to distribute, through its clerk, a document that is not in both languages.

Mr. Clerk, is that the correct interpretation?

The Clerk: Yes, that is a correct interpretation. It is clear that all Canadian citizens have a perfect right to submit documents in the official language of their choice. All that the motion says is that we then take those documents, and I get them translated, and when they are distributed to all of the members of the committee they are distributed in both official languages. But this in no way interferes with the right of Canadian citizens to submit documents to a parliamentary committee in the official language of their choice. That is the clarification I wanted to make.

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That is fine if the individual has the opportunity and the time to give his or her report or document to the clerk, but if he arrives at the last possible minute, what do we do?

The Chair: Ms. Yelich.

[English]

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree wholeheartedly, because I have sat on a committee where it has caused a lot of problems. These witnesses fly in. Some of them don't have access to translation, especially those from western Canada. They try to get it done here. I know that in my own office most of my literature gets backed up when I try to get it done in both official languages. They have spent a great deal of money to come here to make a presentation. Their verbal presentations are brief. Therefore, they have a lengthy written copy, which certainly helps us to ask good questions. I have felt very left out many times. I would appreciate it if that motion did not get passed for the witnesses' sake and also for the committee's. I also think that would work very well for both official languages.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Concerning what Mr. Bellemare asked you, my understanding is that if a witness appears before the committee and has a document in only one of the two official languages, that document cannot be distributed. It is given to the clerk who has it translated and subsequently gives it to the members of the committee. However, if a member of the committee asks that the document be distributed anyway and if the members who are present at that moment give their unanimous consent, even if there are only three or four members, the document can be distributed in only one of the two official languages, as Ms. Yelich just stated. I think that that was it.

The French translation of the motion is not perfect. It reads as follows: “Que le greffier ne soit autorisé qu'à distribuer les documents qui sont dans les deux langues officielles”, whereas in English it specifies “[...] only documents available in both official languages”.

The Chair: Indeed, the texts are not completely identical.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like to support Mr. Bellemare, but I think we are going to be re-opening something we had closed a long time ago in all committees. We had decided that it was important to ensure, for witnesses who come here, whether from the west or from the Atlantic region, that the committee have the documents in both languages. In the past we said that people who were invited to appear before us were not convened on the eve of their appearance. Thus, they can send their documents to the clerk by fax, and they can be translated in advance. That is the way to get it done. There is no reason we cannot offer that service to Canadian citizens. Normally, the vast majority of witnesses who come here cannot follow a presentation in the other language. So there is a disadvantage to members, because not only must they follow what is being said, but they must also follow the terms that are used in the document. All of the members should be on an equal footing when it comes to asking questions. That is one of the reasons why we chose that route. We did that for all committees, and the Parliament should be responsible for helping these people have their documents translated. If the individuals don't have the means to do so, we understand that, but today we have fax machines. The document can be sent to the clerk and we have always been able to rely on a good translation service. I think that we are going to make a mistake, we are going to lose control over the chain of events, and we will see later that in all committees we will be receiving untranslated documents. Later, certain groups will be asking why they aren't being treated the same way. I think that we aren't heading in the right direction. Everyone must have the opportunity of reading the document.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I think that Mr. Patry is closest to my position. Indeed, I remember that at one of the last meetings someone turned up before the committee with a map on which, for instance, the St. Lawrence River was in English only. I don't think that we are so close-minded as to refuse something like that; we need to be a bit open-minded.

However, we are the official languages committee. I would find it very strange if, after making all of these efforts, the Committee on Official Languages stopped being vigilant. If we look at the reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, at the complaints that have been filed and all of that, I think we will understand that we have to remain very vigilant.

As for people from the west, my comment to them would be that through the Internet, even if they are in the west, they can send their documents to the clerk, and we offer a translation service. So, that should not cost too much. They can send their documents by mail or through the Internet.

This motion has to stay on the books. Moreover, we the members of the committee must see to it that it is passed in all committees. That is our duty and our obligation. We cannot lower the bar, that would not make any sense.

The Chair: Very well.

I would now like to give the floor to Ms. Yelich, but before that, if I may, I want to see if we can arrive at a consensus. I will summarize what I've been hearing. If we pass this motion, we would also reserve the right, through unanimous consent, in cases where there is a map or something like that where there are minor variations, to lift the restriction. I think that is what some members have been saying, but I don't claim that that is what everyone has been saying.

Ms. Yelich.

[English]

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: In theory, that is very nice, but in practice, it doesn't happen because of the way witnesses are called. Sometimes, as in the transportation committee last fall, they're called on very short notice. Many witnesses come. The presentations are sitting there by the clerk. What difference would it make if they could be passed out, so some of us or all of us could have the benefit of having some of their presentation written? I don't see how that should be a problem. There are some circumstances when the clerks don't get them back to us and we never see the written presentations.

[Translation]

The Chair: There are still some members who did not get a chance to speak during the first round. I don't require that everyone speak, of course. I think that when we have done with this topic, we can simply vote and continue on with our agenda.

Mr. Simard.

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): I agree entirely with Mr. Sauvageau. It would make no sense not to produce documents in both official languages here at the Committee on Official Languages. Listen, we'd be going back 30 years! I think it would be a very bad message for us to send, especially coming from this committee. What we are discussing this morning makes no sense. Everything should be submitted in both official languages and it is up to the clerk to ensure that the witnesses have been advised to submit their documents in good time so that they can be translated. That is not very complicated, to my way of thinking.

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau would like to speak a second time. I think it's important to remember that when a witness on his own initiative gives documents to a parliamentarian, we are of course not going to stop that. We are talking about documents that are officially submitted to our clerk, are we not? So we have to make sure we remember that.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Ms. Yelich is a new member of this committee. I wanted to explain the situation to her so that she not think that people who come here have to have their speeches in both official languages when they arrive. What the motion says is that the documents that are distributed by the clerk... Thus, if a western organization only had the time to prepare its presentation in English and if it came here and read its document in English only before the committee, this would not be a problem. We have simultaneous interpretation. However, before that document can be officially tabled with the members of the committee it must go through the clerk and be translated, that is all. We are not going to prevent anyone from coming here to address us.

The Chair: Before we move to the vote, with your permission, perhaps I could read to you the following sentence taken from Chapter 20 of Marleau-Montpetit concerning the distribution of documents:

Members of the House of Commons are entitled to receive documents in the official language of their choice.

Thus, if we have the right to receive a document in the official language of our choice, it must have been submitted in both languages. Otherwise, we could not have a choice, in my opinion.

I'll continue reading:

At the same time, members of the public have the right to communicate with a parliamentary committee in either official language.

This is in keeping with what Mr. Sauvageau has just said to us.

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 official language they prefer. Committees must balance the right of members to be treated equally wth 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.

So, today's motion sets out the rules to do just that.

Are you ready to vote on the motion moved by Mr. Godin, as amended in French, where the word “seulement” has been added for clarification?

Á (1125)

[English]

Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

The Chair: The next motion concerns hearings where there is no quorum: that the Chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive and publish evidence when a quorum is not present provided that at least—the number has to be determined—members are present, including a member of the opposition. This is what we generally refer to informally as a mini-quorum.

Would someone like to move this motion and perhaps suggest the number of members for the mini-quorum?

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I move the status quo, that is to say 4 members, because I have just had some non-verbal communication with our clerk...

The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau moves the motion, and the number to be inserted into the motion would be 4.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: The next motion is on the time for opening remarks and questioning of witnesses: that witnesses be given--and we fill in the number of minutes--so many minutes to make their opening statement and that during the questioning of witnesses the time allocated be as follows: number one, so many minutes for each questioner of the first round in the following order: the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party. I suppose that if there's time left, you start the same process over again. Number two, again the number of minutes we decide to put in for each questioner of the second round, alternating between the government and opposition parties. I think that's what I referred to. Number three, again so many minutes for each questioner of the third and subsequent rounds in the order in which they are recognized and at the discretion of the chair.

[Translation]

Could someone move this motion and also suggest a number of minutes?

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I suggest 10, 7, 4, and for supplementaries, 4.

The Chair: Do the members of the committee need to know what the figures were the last time? Is this of interest to you or should we...?

Mr. Raymond Simard: What were they the last time?

The Clerk: The last time, the figures were 10, 7, 5, 5. This time around, Mr. Sauvageau is proposing 10, 7, 4, 4.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I amend my proposal and I suggest 10, 7, 5, 5.

The Chair: So, the motion is now 10, 7, 5, 5.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I have something to add. Often, we wait for a quorum to gather. We had added something at the last meeting. I move that if there is no quorum 15 minutes after the hearing was scheduled to begin, we stop waiting because as parliamentarians all of us are relatively busy. Sometimes we waited 10, 20, or 25 minutes to begin, for whatever reason.

I would like to move the following motion: this morning, for instance, our hearing was scheduled to begin at 11 o'clock. If at 11:15 we did not have a quorum, our meeting would be cancelled.

Á (1130)

Mr. Raymond Simard: And what happens when there are witnesses?

The Chair: If there are witnesses, the other option prevails.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes. If two of us arrive and wait 25 minutes for nothing while those who work with the other parties are calling the members, and if no one comes... I have other things to do besides sip coffee here.

The Chair: With your permission, Mr. Sauvageau, if we have witnesses to hear, I think Mr. Simard just drew our attention to the fact that we have just passed a motion stipulating that we begin with a mini-quorum while waiting for a full quorum. I think that what you are suggesting would apply in those cases when we have neither one nor the other.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, that's it. I want things to work, but I don't want us to...

The Chair: In those cases where we have not convened a witness and are simply holding a meeting without witnesses, we would give up after 15 minutes. That is what you would like to add?

Mr. Clerk, could you draft that addendum and read it to us, please?

The Clerk: That, at a hearing where no testimony is scheduled, if there is no quorum after 15 minutes, the hearing be cancelled.

Mr. Bernard Patry: You say “where no testimony is scheduled”. Sometimes, testimony is scheduled.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: If the mini-quorum is required, after waiting 15 minutes, we stop waiting. If a quorum is required, for another type of hearing, and if we do not have it... In other words, 15 minutes after the bell starts, if we do not have a quorum, we stop waiting.

The Chair: Would it not be simpler to say: if after 15 minutes, there is neither quorum nor miniquorum, the meeting shall adjourn. Would that not solve the problem?

Mr. Raymond Simard: Only if there are no witnesses.

The Chair: No, it applies in both cases.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: In any case, we know what we want.

The Chair: Would that work, procedurally speaking?

That said, parliamentary colleagues, I intend to come to meetings five minutes early. I hope that everyone will cooperate so that our meetings begin at the scheduled time. It seems to me after all that we are in a manner of speaking a discipline committee, the discipline of official languages, but discipline nonetheless. If we all show that we are inclined to be disciplined by turning up here at the right time I think that would be a good thing. I don't want to preach but that is the approach I would like to take if you want to do things in this way.

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: The mini-quorum is a problem for me because that is the one that will apply when witnesses are coming. Let's say for instance that we are to hear witnesses from Montreal and that they arrive 20 minutes late. I don't have a problem with the committee rule but insofar as the mini-quorum is concerned if three members are ready and all three decide to wait 20 minutes or half an hour after having learned that the witnesses are a half hour late a motion like this one could prevent that from happening. That is where I have a problem.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But we can agree by unanimous consent to stay.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, perhaps we should spell that out. Otherwise, someone can simply say that he or she is leaving.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It can be amended by unanimous consent. If there is a snowstorm or something of the kind the principle is the same as that agreed on earlier for documents.

The Chair: Mr. Clerk, could you enlighten us?

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I don't want to get bogged down in needless detail.

The Clerk: Indeed, the committee can decide to adopt that rule but if the committee decides to make an exception it can do so by unanimous consent; I can confirm that.

The Chair: That said, are we ready to vote?

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Before voting, I would like to know the exact terms of the text because what is important is the beginning of the meeting. At the beginning of the meeting we can always find four people; the fourth can come from the other committee. We begin the meeting, and then it can happen that there are only three members. At that point, we had a quorum to begin the meeting. If we had a quorum to start the hearing, we can continue and hear the witnesses. We can continue to hear witnesses even though there are only two or three members. Nothing prevents us from continuing the hearing at that point.

Is that what you mean? Basically, all we have to do is get the hearing underway.

The Chair: Our clerk tells us that we can't make an exception to the mini-quorum rule because we would need a full quorum to agree to derogate from it. But I don't think that is what Mr. Patry is referring to.

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, I am not. Mr. Clerk, you did not understand me. To get the meeting going you need four people. If you had four people, the hearing has begun, there are witnesses. If one member leaves, we can continue the hearing. That is what I mean. Thus, it is to get the hearing underway that you need the mini-quorum.

The Chair: In parliamentary terms, the quorum can have two meanings: it means the number of members required to begin a meeting. Once the meeting has begun, I think that the convention... At the House of commons, 20 members are not always present. If someone raises the absence of a quorum, the absence of a quorum must be noted, but if no one does so, a quorum is deemed present until then; is that not the case, Mr. Clerk?

Á (1135)

The Clerk: Yes. To get the hearing underway, you need a quorum or mini-quorum.

The Chair: Very well, we agree.

Before we vote on the motion, Mr. Clerk, could you read the addendum, because Mr. Patry has just asked that it be read.

The Clerk: First, I would like to ask you whether this rule applies to the quorum and the mini-quorum or to the quorum only. I'm talking about hearings without testimony. It applies to both; in that case, I can read something to you: in the absence of a quorum or mini-quorum—I may formulate this in some other way in the proceedings—15 minutes after the scheduled hearing start time, the hearing is cancelled.

Mr. Bernard Patry: The hearing may be cancelled. It doesn't mean that it is cancelled.

The Clerk: We could add “if there is no unanimous consent” and then the rule.

Mr. Bernard Patry: Very well.

[English]

Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Environmental or weather hazard or something?

[Translation]

Mr. Bernard Patry: That's it.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Lee.

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): A really interesting conversation, Mr. Chairman.

There are circumstances sometimes: we have a vote in the House, we get pulled away, we come back, and the meeting is delayed a lot more than 20 minutes. Usually these things are left in the hands of the chair and you have a consensus at the time as to what to do. Putting it into a hard and fast rule might look good now, but it might not work too well later.

While I have the microphone, on the same issue, the first part of the “time for opening remarks and questioning”, fixing an absolute time for witnesses doesn't seem to be very productive. Fixing a time for questioning with the rounds is, for sure. We have times here when we have briefings from departmental witnesses that can take 20 minutes or a half an hour. There are times when you have a group of witnesses--four or five witnesses all presenting--and you may have to shrink their time to six minutes. I don't see the point of having a precise “witnesses shall be allowed 10 minutes to make an opening statement”.

Based on my experience, I would recommend deleting the first part of that so that it simply reads, “During the questioning of witnesses, that the time allocated be as follows”. I don't see a point to making it a strict 10 minutes for every witness and every occasion.

The Chair: I am told this is the identical motion under which the committee was already operating. In fact, those who were members of the committee prior to the prorogation, I'm told by the clerk, already had this rule. I suppose by unanimous consent they must have lifted the time again--

Mr. Derek Lee: It must have worked.

The Chair: They at least gave an indication, and they operated that way. I don't know if that changes the opinion of people who are here today. I'm told that they already had that rule, so perhaps members would want to be aware of that. That's all.

Mr. Patry.

Mr. Bernard Patry: I'd agree with you, Derek, except for one simple matter. The clerk sends a note to the witness saying “When you appear in front of the committee, you're going to be allowed 10 minutes”. If you don't put in any timeframe, he's going to speak for 25 or 30 minutes, and the chair cannot stop him, because it's very difficult to stop a witness. At that time you're going to be left with 30 minutes for questioning the witness. It's just to give some guidelines so that the clerk can say to him, “You've got 10 minutes”. If it's very interesting, it goes on for 12 or 15 minutes. It doesn't matter. It's up to the chair at that time. I think it's good to get some guidelines for the clerk.

The Chair: In any case, I'm told the committee had been operating this way.

[Translation]

I now have the addendum that was proposed a few minutes ago. I would like to read it to you, and if you think that this motion as drafted could garner a consensus we could pass it and continue. It is up to you.

Mr. Clerk, could you read what you have prepared in the meantime?

The Clerk: If there is no unanimous consent, if there is no quorum or reduced quorum 15 minutes after the scheduled start time of a hearing, said hearing may be cancelled.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We shall now deal with the motion on witnesses' expenses. I invite you to consider the motion which reads as follows: That, if requested, reasonable travel, accommodation and living expenses be reimbursed to witnesses not exceeding two representatives per organization.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I move the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: The next motion is on working lunches: that the clerk be authorized to make the necessary arrangements to provide for working meals or refreshments for the committee and its subcommittees if applicable.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I move the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Transcripts of in-Camera meetings: That one copy of the transcript of all in-camera meetings be kept in the Committee Clerk's office for consultation by members of the Committee.

Mr. Christian Jobin: I move the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

Á (1140)

[English]

The Chair: The next motion is on staff during in camera meetings: that unless otherwise stated, each committee member be allowed to have one staff person present at in camera meetings. That's, of course, so that each one of us can bring our personal researcher into the room.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I move the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

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

I am told that this already existed and that this is similar to a motion at the public accounts committee that concerns the Auditor General.

Mr. Raymond Simard: I move the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

The Chair: The next motion is on notice of substantive motions: that except for amendments to bills or unless there is unanimous consent, 48-hours' notice be given before any substantive motion is considered by the committee.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, CPC): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now I can say we've completed the list--

Mr. Bernard Patry: No, there's another page.

The Chair: Mr. Jaffer, these are not the routine motions. These are specific ones that are of interest to you. Some of these may be at variance with something we've already adopted.

The first motion has to do with an invitation for consideration of the estimates.

Mr. Jaffer.

Mr. Derek Lee: Do we have a 48-hour rule, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: I suppose we do, but this was already before us a moment ago. Perhaps the members would want to listen to the motion nonetheless.

Mr. Derek Lee: Well, “a moment ago” doesn't mean 48 hours.

I'm sorry, I'm being cute.

The Chair: Let me reword it.

Do I have unanimous consent to allow Mr. Jaffer to propose his motion?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Jaffer.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I move that whenever the main estimates or the supplementary estimates are referred to this committee, the committee invite the minister and any relevant senior officials or the Commissioner of Official Languages to appear at a televised meeting.

Should I read the other motion as well? They're separate, though.

The Chair: Then perhaps we should deal with them one at a time.

I understand we don't have television facilities in all rooms. Do you want to say “when such rooms are available”, or is that understood?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Yes, I think that's understood.

The Chair: But do you want to add it? For instance, I understand there are only two set-ups like that, and of course sometimes there may be four committees sitting at once.

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Sure, we could add it, but obviously we'd like to have it if it's possible.

The Chair: Mr. Clerk, how would we word that amendment?

The Clerk: Perhaps “to appear at, if possible, a televised meeting”.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Patry, what is your suggestion?

Mr. Bernard Patry: I suggest the words “to appear at televised hearings if possible”.

The Chair: If available.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: If available, yes, because you're not going to not have the minister just because you can't have it televised.

The Chair: So this is the new wording.

Now, debate.

[Translation]

Mr. Godin.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I think they should appear when hearings are televised. It is up to us to organize the meeting. In the past, almost all the hearings of our committee have been televised. I think that there would not be a problem when it is important, especially when we invite a minister to appear. I don't think there should be any doubt. It is up to us to get organized and find a meeting room.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Yes, Mr. Godin, but you know it is the whips who work out the time slots that are available for committees, etc. For instance, I would not want us to examine estimates just because it isn't possible to broadcast a hearing. If we adopt a strict motion like the one you are putting forward rather than the one proposed by Mr. Jaffer I wonder if in a way we won't be boxing ourselves in.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: We can block you, then, any time the television is not there. You're not going to get your witness because there's no television. I mean, obviously that's bad.

[Translation]

The Chair: It is up to you. I think that if we adopt an overly directive motion, what will happen is that we won't even be able to hear certain witnesses because of it. I don't know if you see that danger, as I do.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't think the whips decide on the hearings. They have never respected the committee, and it organizes its hearings by itself. That is why we chose hours and days that had been left free by others.

[English]

Mr. Bernard Patry: On this side we agree to leaving it like it is. It's up to you, but you might lose in terms of not getting the meeting because there's no television. We're not going to lose, you're going to lose. You're the opposition. We just want to make it fair.

[Translation]

The Chair: You want to let it drop? May we vote on the motion as drafted by Mr. Jaffer?

[English]

Okay. So Mr. Jaffer has amended his motion.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[Translation]

The Chair: The next motion deals with the Auditor General's report.

Is there unanimous consent to allow Mr. Jaffer to move the second motion?

Mr. Yvon Godin: Did we vote on the amended motion?

The Chair: That is what I said, yes.

Is there unanimous consent to allow Mr. Jaffer to move his second motion?

Voices: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr. Jaffer.

[English]

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: This is just a standard motion that any time the Auditor General tables a report that affects our committee or official languages, we call her in front of the committee.

The Chair: I'll read the motion:

That whenever a Chapter of a Report of the Auditor General refers to a subject under the mandate of the Committee, the Committee invite the Office of the Auditor General and any relevant Senior Officials of a Department to appear at a televised meeting.

Do you want to add the same proviso, “providing that it's available”?

Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Yes, sure.

The Chair: Okay.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

The Chair: I think I've exhausted the list of motions.

In terms of scheduling the first meeting of this committee,

[Translation]

Mr. Clerk, at what time and on which days would the committee normally meet?

The Clerk: The committee generally met on Tuesday mornings from 9 to 11 o'clock.

[English]

and on Wednesdays from 3:30 to 5:30 p.m.

[Translation]

The Chair: Are the members generally agreed that the committee should, at least until further notice, keep to the schedule it had in the past, that is to say Tuesday mornings and Wednesday afternoons?

Voices:Yes.

The Chair: Before we conclude, I would like to inform you that the Commissioner of Official Languages had offered to come and give us a briefing, either in camera, as would normally be the case, or in an open session, according to your preference. Would you like to schedule a private briefing for our first meeting next Tuesday, or a public meeting with the Commissioner of Official Languages? Please state your preference, and then we can vote on this and proceed.

Mr. Sauvageau.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I am not at all opposed to the idea of having a public meeting with the Official Languages Commissioner so that she can give us a brief overview of the situation.

While I have the floor, I will do like Mr. Lee did earlier. I want to remind the members of the committee that I sent a letter of invitation to Mr. Pierre Pettigrew, the Minister responsible for Official Languages, to have him come and testify before us, especially in light of the fact that he openly admitted that he was going to cut half of the $751million Official Languages Program. I want to know where he will begin to cut.

So, yes, I would like to hear the Commissioner of Official Languages and her staff, but I also want us to hear Mr. Pettigrew, on a very urgent basis. I know that we are not discussing future business yet, but that is all right.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Tuesday morning, our researcher could give us a presentation, and we could ask the Commissioner of Official Languages to appear a half hour or an hour later, as you wish. So we could prepare ourselves by hearing both guests, and then receive other witnesses such as ministers. Personally, I am quite willing to receive the person you propose as our first witness. I have no objection to that. I don't know what the other members think.

I would like to put one last question to our clerk. Do we have a steering committee, or does the full committee normally function as its own steering committee, here?

The Clerk: The second option prevails, unless the members of the committee decide otherwise. During the previous session, there was no steering committee. So decisions on future business were made by committee of the whole.

[English]

The Chair: Is it your wish that we don't have a steering committee, that the entire committee be the steering committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

[Translation]

The Chair: Very well.

So, you will be sent a notice of meeting. The first hearing will probably take place next Tuesday. If you wish, we will hear a presentation from our staff during the first hour. I think it should be in camera since it is an internal briefing. During the second hour, if I understood what Mr. Sauvageau suggested correctly—and no one has spoken against the idea—the Commissioner of Official Languages will give us a public briefing. Are we agreed?

Agreed.

The meeting is adjourned.