Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 2 - Evidence, December 9, 2002
OTTAWA, Monday, December 9, 2002
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4:07 p.m. to consider the future business of this committee.
Hon. Senator Rose-Marie Losier-Cool (Chair), in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: I would like to thank you for being here today to finalize the future business of this committee which will be conducted at least until the end of March. If our plans can extend to the summer holidays that would be even better.
This is a working meeting, which is why you received a notice this morning or yesterday. This is an important working meeting because we would like to finalize our future business.
I remember that mention was made in the committee that we wanted these meetings to be open to the public. If you have any objections, or if you would prefer to meet in camera, you can let us know but remember that we are meeting this morning to decide on our business for the coming months.
I have some questions to ask with respect to translation and printing. Should we ask the Debates of the Senate to transcribe and translate our debates at these meetings? Or can we get by with only the blues?
As you know most of us attend other committee meetings, and unless this is included in a report, there will be no report of the Senate debates. Would you agree to forgo the translation and printing of today's proceedings in order to reduce the costs? The committee clerk will be sending you the blues tomorrow or the next day.
Senator Gauthier: I have read the document. We should try to be flexible and not adopt that type of document immediately. We met with the commissioner. I read the minutes from Ms. Adam, and there are a number of items that we should examine further before undertaking the study of topics such as Public Works or Treasury Board.
I thought that the reason why we struck a Senate committee was to proceed with an in-depth consideration of issues, rather than to deal with matters that might only be of interest to a few people or groups.
That is why I believe that the most important issues for senators at this time would be health, justice and probably, after Christmas, the public service. There will be a great deal of upheaval within the public service. The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages will have an important part to play in that. The members of Parliament will not have the time to examine the whole issue, so we must take the time to do it. I am still not quite in agreement with the idea of meeting once every two weeks, I do not think that it is enough. We will have to give some thought to a better approach because this is a very complex issue. It is not a question of apples or oranges, it is more complex than that. We will have to be more flexible. I don't want to meet in camera, I prefer to have public meetings. This is in the public interest.
The House of Commons has held two meetings that were reported at length in the media. I do not want any of that. They were debating traffic tickets in Quebec. That is right. They discussed traffic violations, and they did it at length. It is something that interests me, but I do not think we have to make a big deal about it. Health is important. There are Senate documents that we should be looking into.
Last week, Senators Léger and Losier-Cool attended a committee meeting on health care services in French. I think we should deal with that document and see what it says. We should read it, make comments and do what has to be done to ensure that the Official Languages Act is applied.
I think we should be more flexible than to simply say: ``This is the future business of the committee.'' Where will that lead us? Mr. Dion will be announcing his action plan after Christmas. There will be a whole host of topics to discuss. If we do not do that here, in committee, I do not know what will happen but I do know that the communities will be not satisfied with our work. We must discuss this so as to better reflect the interests of the communities.
Here is my problem. I represent 500,000 Franco-Ontarians and I am the only one here. We have problems with justice, health, and social services. I would like the committee to discuss these issues. I do not want to spend my time discussing a document that says that in March we will be examining ``the Special Study on the Operation of the Official Languages Act.''
The Chairman: I apologize for interrupting you. You are raising an important point that will be discussed later.
For the time being, would you agree to simply have the draft of this meeting or should we ask the Journals of the Senate to publish a copy of the meeting for us.
Senator Gauthier: You asked about sitting in camera. I do not agree with that.
The Chairman: That is why we are not doing it.
Senator Corbin: I think there should be a public record of this committee proceedings in both official languages. Of all of the Senate committees, this one should set the example. This will be helpful to the general public as well as to experts from both linguistic communities.
Whether we want it or not, even if our proceedings do not appear to be far-reaching from the outset, some people are interested in our point of view and we should given them an opportunity to react in the language of their choice.
The Chairman: Are there any other comments? We have no problem doing it if you want this for the archives or for the future.
Senator Corbin: If it is not an in camera meeting then the record will have to be published in both official languages.
Senator Gauthier: I agree with Senator Corbin.
The Chairman: Beside the blue, we will have to ask the Journals of the Senate to proceed.
In your documents you have the criteria governing the committee's selection of its activities. I would like to take a quick look at them. I think they may influence our choice of the future business of this committee. There are two criteria resulting from your response to the request that had been made.
The first criterion deals with promoting the cause of linguistic minorities and preventing their assimilation.
Senator Gauthier has just alluded to health care. That is certainly one way to further the cause of linguistic minorities. That would be an important theme. The second criterion deals with an in-depth study of certain issues: whether we invite the Commissioner, the minister or Ms. Copps, we will have to follow-up the presentations. We will keep these criteria in mind when we decide on the future business of the committee.
We have also distributed the list of 23 projects. Some have not been identified.
Senator Gauthier: This list was drafted by the clerk. Earlier, I had circulated a list, some points of which were taken up. I think we should deal specifically with the important issues that the committee will be considering. Whether it be health or justice, I think we should decide upon the topics to be examined.
The Chairman: We are dealing with that. We have the list.
Senator Gauthier: The use of official languages in Crown corporations is a very important topic which I do not remember having yet been discussed during the many years that I have sat on this committee. The agreement relating to federal-provincial contributions has never been evaluated by Heritage Canada nor by any other body. This is something that we must deal with.
The Official Languages Act was passed in 1988, and the regulations adopted in 1990. The regulations have never been reviewed. I think we should take some time to study the regulations and invite witnesses to explain how these regulations are being applied.
Some services have been privatized. Arm's length agencies have been created where there is no language accountability. The census results will be made public tomorrow; this is an important event for communities. We should have spent some time discussing what will happen. I did bring it up at least six weeks ago.
I would like the Canadian public to be able to watch the televised debates of our committee meetings. Last night CPAC broadcast the Official Languages Committee debate as well as an interview with Solicitor General Wayne Easter. I was not able to watch it, since it was not closed-captioned. A representative of the RCMP was appearing and I think they were dealing with traffic tickets.
The Chairman: You will note that in the work plan you have before you we have left blank spaces so that committee members might include their own suggestions. This work plan has been designed to help those who are responsible for planning our meetings and arranging for witnesses while the Senate is not sitting. Senator Gauthier, your suggestions will be taken into account.
Senator Comeau: I am having trouble following this work plan. First of all, I thought we would be meeting every two weeks. If memory serves, we met last week to hear the Commissioner of Official Languages. Only a few minutes ago I was told that we were again meeting today.
So we are already deviating from our schedule. Whether or not we meet once a week or every two weeks, I would like to know so that I can plan my own schedule.
Senator Gauthier submitted a list of topics for our consideration. I thought that we could add to the list that had already been distributed. That is what I have done and I think you have my list.
From that list, there was to be some type of summary of senators' priorities. I assume that this list of priorities as well as any additions is what we have been given today. Are we going to continue with that list, as Senator Gauthier as suggested, without making any particular choice at this point in time?
The Chairman: We are going to decide today on what you would like to do. We cannot do everything that is on the list. We must set some priorities.
Senator Comeau: I added a few priorities to the list. I thought that you would summarize the priorities that most of us had agreed upon. Howver, I do not think that is quite what we will be doing.
The Chairman: Not everyone submitted a list. We have a list from you and one from Senator Gauthier. Senator Maheu requested that access to health services be provided in English for anglophone linguistic minorities living in Quebec.
With respect to your first question, Senator Comeau, as I explained at the outset, today's meeting is somewhat special because we have to decide upon the future business of this committee since the holidays are wear.
In the future, unless the committee decides to proceed otherwise, we will meet once every two weeks. As we decided on November 18, alternate meetings will be preparatory meetings.
Senator Comeau: If you hold a special meeting, could we know beforehand what type of meeting it is?
The Chairman: That is why I did not have to ask for leave today, even though the Senate was sitting. This is not an official meeting.
[English]
Senator Keon: I have just a brief comment. From the list of possible projects, we could certainly all agree on what we have to do. I would just make the point that there will be a great deal of time devoted to health in the next little while, because of the Romanow commission and the Kirby committee. On item numbers 17 and 19, and Senator Gauthier has already raised this, it would be wise for us to deal with these issues while we might have maximum effect on the outcome.
The Chairman: I agree.
[Translation]
Senator Léger: I see two levels in this discussion: first, I think we should move on to the most important issues, rather than getting sidetracked and we should draft a list of all of the important points.
Second, what they do in other committees? What happens if we take on too much? I am having trouble juggling my appearances in the Senate as well as preparing my files for the two other committees on which I sit. I do not know how we can do anything substantial when our energies are constantly being scattered.
I agree with Senator Keon that we should deal with two issues this year. Health and Minister Dion's report. If we have to examine justice and other matters, each one of them quite involved, I do not see how we will be able to manage everything.
The Chairman: Senator Comeau also made a recommendation to that effect.
Senator Corbin: I did not submit any suggestions, I thought we already had enough on the table. We have to agree on priorities. However, I think that what the commissioner said is quite important in view of the fact that this committee should seriously consider following up on her comments as soon as possible without waiting until the end of the session.
Last week, in answer to my questions, the commissioner said that we should amend the Official Languages Act. She did not have enough time to give us an exhaustive list, but she did briefly refer to one or two issues.
I feel this is important and should be a priority. If she thinks there is a problem in the way that she operates or if she feels that the departments are not delivering the goods, than I think this committee should submit a report to the Senate as soon as possible so that the government will have an opportunity to respond.
Among other things, she emphasized the poor performance of deputy ministers, the ones who are most responsible for enforcing the Official Languages Act which must serve as an example. Many of them are not bilingual. They occupy the position for a little while and then they are gone. They are replaced every two or three years. The deputy ministers are constantly trying to climb the ladder. At some point they have become the president of the Bank of Canada, of CN, nothing remains permanent for long. There is no institutional memory that would ensure that the Commissioner's recommendations will be followed up, to ensure that the will of the government, of Parliament, is respected. In view of the comments made last year by the commissioner, this committee should waste no time in reporting to the Senate and in asking the government to correct these shortcomings.
I think these might be called absolute priorities. You do not wait until you have finished dealing with a particular issue to proceed. We should act immediately. If necessary, we could ask the commissioner to return so that she might further explain her thoughts and make suggestions that would help us in drafting our recommendations. As for the rest, we can agree among ourselves.
If the majority feels that health care if crucial in the present context, I will go along with them even if it is not my preference, but we must not waste any more time.
The Chairman: Did you not ask Ms. Adam if she had any suggestions for us? I seem to remember her saying that she would be telling us, and that she would also deal with the changes that she would like to see.
Senator Corbin: I have not read the minutes. She did agree, but I am not sure what she intends to do now. I think we should tell her that we would like her to be more open on these issues and ask her to share her suggestions for reforming the Act, the Regulations, or the Public Service of Canada.
The Chairman: I agree. During one of our first meetings I said that I wanted to discuss the Official Languages Committee in the Senate Chamber, along with reports. Will this be done after each meeting? We can do that according to our order of reference.
Should we have drafted a report on this week's meeting with the commissioner or should we be drawing up a status report covering all last three meetings?
Senator Comeau: The Finance Committee uses an approach we could use. If an issue is raised that is important or that needs to be drawn to the attention of other senators, then a report can be drawn up, but there does not necessarily have to be one every two or three meetings. Only when it is necessary.
The Chairman: Perhaps drafting a report after the commissioner's visit would have been very useful. I agree with that.
Senator Gauthier: I think Senator Corbin's idea is excellent: follow-ups on our meetings with the Official Languages Commissioner are necessary. I can give you a list of the suggestions she made, and documents she referred to. On page 18, for example, she mentioned a Treasury Board study entitled ``Attitudes towards the use of both official languages within the public service of Canada.'' We should have this document in order to discuss it.
On page 22, she recommended to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to develop support programs in order to apply the language provisions of the new legislation. Our researcher should be able to give us the necessary information.
She mentioned that she had made recommendations to the Minister of Justice regarding access to justice. Once again, we could request information in order to familiarize ourselves with this issue. Perhaps this is not as important an issue in New Brunswick, but in Ontario it is very important because the bankruptcy and divorce legislation is very badly administered and this is federal jurisdiction. The same is true for Nova Scotia.
We need to think in terms of Canada as a whole and its problems. The Department of Justice officials will come if invited. They have already appeared before the Official languages committee of the House of Commons. If they are not invited, they will not come, if we take our time with a Treasury Board proposal that may be tabled in February or March. Ms. Robillard is ready to undertake a new restructuring. I was told that because I asked her. If we do not ask for anything, we will not get anything.
I would like our researcher to start by taking the minutes of December 2 meeting and providing us with a summary of Ms. Adam's recommendations.
For your information, I wrote to each minister in October, including the Minister responsible for Official Languages, and I asked what the situation was with employees and management staff. I wanted to know if they met the requirements of their positions, because after March 31, there will be no more grace. They will have to comply with the law.
I wrote to Mr. Dion. There is a committee called the Official Languages Reference Group within cabinet. This is a very important group made up of deputy ministers, people we should perhaps meet with. I was never able to obtain the list of members of that group because I was told that it was confidential. I finally obtained the list by writing and by hounding them. We should meet these people so that we know what the situation is in their departments, and they can explain to us what the problems are. There are many things to do. I am sorry if I am so enthusiastic, but health and justice are important for our communities. It is important for the people out West as well. The network proposed by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, is important.
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier, everything is important. However, we only have one hour and we need to leave here with a work plan. As you raise these points, I will attempt to obtain a decision from the committee. Regarding meetings, that has been done. With respect to reports, I agree.
The report that will follow up on a meeting, whether that be a meeting with the commissioner or a meeting with a minister, will have to be accepted by the committee members. Is the preparatory meeting on the following Monday a good time for that? I do not think so.
Senator Comeau: Every week or every two weeks.
The Chairman: Fine, the next report will be submitted for approval by the committee. I will now ask the clerk to explain the work plan and then you can tell us whether you agree or not on meeting with Ms. Robillard. Perhaps it is not necessary to meet her. Then we will ask you to fill in the blanks.
Senator Gauthier: It is not up to the clerk to explain our work plan to us. We make those decisions.
The Chairman: I will simply ask him to explain how the plan works, how it was made, but not what is in it. If you understand it, we can move on.
Senator Gauthier: He is not an expert on this. I am against the clerk explaining the work plan. We have senators who are perfectly capable of doing that. We have a researcher who is capable of doing that. I sent you a plan on November 7. Obviously you did not look at it.
The Chairman: Then let us return to our discussion on future business. That is the purpose of today's meeting and we have been here for 30 minutes. The main purpose of this meeting is to discuss future business.
Senator Gauthier: Exactly.
The Chairman: Fine. We will begin at the end of January.
Senator Corbin: I need a clarification. Senator Gauthier spoke about his list. I have two lists in front of me. I have the one that came with your memorandum entitled ``list of possible projects.'' Is that Senator Gauthier's list?
Senator Gauthier: No, it takes from mine. My ideas are in there, but that is not what I wanted to do with it.
Senator Corbin: I would like us to agree.
Senator Gauthier: Marion Ménard, the former researcher, did this.
The Chairman: Let us use the list of projects in alphabetical order because Senator Gauthier's suggestions for projects are included in this list.
Senator Corbin: That was the one that was sent to us?
The Chairman: Should we still entertain the idea of hearing Minister Lucienne Robillard from Treasury Board before our committee at our first official meeting in the beginning of February 2003?
Senator Comeau: My feeling was, and this was suggested by Senator Keon, that we should consider the whole issue of health care as soon as possible, while it is still topical.
We are now moving in a different direction if we are not discussing health care. It was Senator Keon's suggestion and I thought there was a consensus around the table on this. I agree with Senator Keon and I believe Senator Gauthier was interested. Therefore our first meeting could revolve around health care.
The Chairman: Regarding health care, the anglophones from Quebec are supposed to be presenting a report, as we did, and I believe we will have obtained it by then.
We are dropping Ms. Robillard? Perhaps it is not the priority for now. However, I do not think we should forget that Ms. Robillard's reform includes issues that concern the Official Languages Act. For example, bilingualism in the public service, bonuses, et cetera. Is that a priority for the committee? Perhaps not.
Senator Gauthier: This is off to a bad start.
The Chairman: That is too bad. I am doing my best and I am awaiting recommendations.
Senator Gauthier: We need an overall plan. I suggested at the beginning of the meeting that topics should be put on the table: health, justice and current topics.
For example, there are things to be said about Air Canada. We all received a message, at least I received a copy of an email.
[English]
It is a message by electronic mail from Air Canada to the Clerk of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, December 4. Transport Canada has rescinded the decision to allow Air Canada to use a card for the individual briefings of passengers seated next to an emergency exit. The following message from Transport is self-explanatory.
[Translation]
I hope that you all read it. It was only in English. It is important. I travelled by plane and all of you also often travel by plane.
It is important for Canadians to have safety rules on a plane. It is important that Air Canada not put Ms. Léger beside an exit because she speaks French. Just a minute. We have fought against that attitude. It is just an idea.
Senator Léger: Senator Gauthier, I understand that you want to discuss the larger issues. If we choose Air Canada and a small exit door, I think it is vitally important, but it is a smaller issue. Are we going to study health?
Senator Gauthier: No, no. I mentioned health and justice. These are big issues. If you are not interested, we will do something else!
Senator Comeau: I am trying to understand what Senator Gauthier has a problem with. Earlier we were talking about health care. I thought there was an interest around the table to study these two issues.
Senator Gauthier: Yes, I raised it.
Senator Comeau: Now you are talking about Air Canada. Which is important, health or Air Canada? We need to agree. We cannot jump back and forth.
Senator Gauthier: I suggested taking on broader issues. Health is one and justice is another. All Senator Corbin has to do is look at the document on access to justice, continue the debate and call the Minister of Justice to find out what is happening with the Divorce Act. This is an issue of justice.
After having met with the communities we wrote a report on services in French. The Chair mentions services in English in Quebec. I agree, but there is a document on health services that we should at least look at. I do not see why we cannot proceed with a specific issue.
The Chairman: Does everyone agree that at our meeting on January 27 we consider health care for both minority groups?
Some senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Now, do you wish to suggest any witnesses?
Senator Beaudoin: I agree with this. Health care is a global issue and we can include many things under that heading. Now, who would be the best witnesses? Ms. Robillard perhaps? I do not know if she should be the first witness though. That is debatable. I agree with the suggestion of broader topics. I like that. There are many things that we can discuss within health and justice. I prefer that to individuals. I prefer ideas, themes.
Who would I invite first? I do not know. I do not really have the expertise to answer that.
The Chairman: People can sometimes be included under a theme and you mentioned Ms. Robillard from Treasury Board. She has taken initiatives in bilingualism. Mr. Dion has included points related to health in his action plan for February. He has already announced this.
Senator Beaudoin: Then I would suggest Mr. Dion and Ms. Robillard.
Senator Gauthier: If you are looking for witnesses to talk about health care in French, you could invite representatives from the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. You could also try inviting Mr. Romanow to talk to us about recommendation no. 28 dealing with francophone and Acadian communities. If you would like suggestions for witnesses, I can provide you with a long list. Health is a very topical subject and I share Senator Keon's feelings about it, that is that we need to strike while the iron is hot. Health is important right now.
Perhaps the researcher could prepare a comparative analysis of what has been suggested by Mr. Romanow and Senator Kirby and his committee, respectively. We need a clear and detailed understanding of this. Senator Kirby will be tabling a report this week on health care services in French. Why not study that report? Is it going to end up on the shelf?
The Chairman: To come back to the list of projects, we would have numbers 17, 18 and 19. That is what Senator Gauthier has just suggested and it deals with health care.
[English]
Senator Keon: I would suggest we stick to items 17 and 19. We could do item 18 later. Items 17 and 19 are mentioned in both the Romanow report and the Kirby report. However, justice is not done to them in those reports. This is timely. Let us be realistic. The major problem in Canada is the lack of francophone services across the country. If we focused on those two reports to see how we could improve the situation, certainly, I think Romanow only had a short paragraph, comprised of general statements. We could leave the English services until later.
The Chairman: I would inquire of all members of the committee as to whether we should have both Senator Kirby and Mr. Romanow on a panel before us.
Senator Beaudoin: I would agree with that.
The Chairman: We could start with that. Then we could consider hearing from Minister Dion and Minister Copps, as soon as Minister Dion comes out with his plan of action.
[Translation]
Ms. Copps' action plan deals with the issue of programs, and francophones have asked for official language programs in the health sector. They will no doubt make that request again when we consider the recommendations in the Kirby report.
Could we ask Ms. Copps to identify the options? Her department is responsible for the official languages program. Should we consider the possibility of inviting Ms. Copps?
Senator Beaudoin: The names you have mentioned are interesting, but it would be limited to the health care sector. The Romanow report, the Kirby report and the other reports contain a lot of material. What interests us, if I have correctly understood Senator Gauthier's suggestion, is health care. Health care can be considered from a number of perspectives. The Romanow and Kirby reports are certainly important, as are Minister Robillard and Minister Dion, but the emphasis is on health.
The Chairman: Should we have more than one meeting? Is that what you are saying?
Senator Beaudoin: I am talking about the topic.
Senator Gauthier: What I want is to have our researcher or the library do a comparative study of recommendation 28 in the Romanow report and the report of the Social Affairs, Science and Technology Committee in order to highlight the main points.
In the Kirby report, official languages are not mentioned at all. This was something that was added last week. We need to be clear. I do not believe that Senator Kirby and Mr. Romanow — who hardly speak to each other — would be willing to appear before our committee. My idea is to compare the two reports so that we can use that information. If there is overlap, so much the better.
The Chairman: On the topic of health care, we may have two or three meetings, unless we have a number of witnesses, for example, the people from the FCFA, the heads of health care organizations, et cetera.
Senator Gauthier: Once we have the research document, we can decide how many meetings we will hold and who we will invite. That can be done in January.
The Chairman: At the first meeting in late January. In February, should we continue with health?
Senator Léger: I have a question about the Romanow and Kirby reports. They have submitted their reports, they have drawn conclusions after hearing witnesses. At certain committees I had the opportunity to hear witnesses from Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. We would have them come here again to give the same presentation? Mr. Romanow and Mr. Kirby have already done that. I do not know what we are looking for. Are we going to start from scratch and hear witnesses from the same federations? I am having difficulty understanding all this.
Senator Gauthier: We are not talking about having the witnesses come back here.
Senator Corbin: Is the researcher here today?
The Chairman: Not officially; she is still working.
Senator Corbin: We need to be well-prepared before each meeting. If we want to look into the health care issue, we need a succinct analysis of the proposals made by Mr. Romanow and Senator Kirby regarding services to francophones. That should be sent to our offices — time is on our side here — at least three days or a week ahead so that we can think about the information and prepare questions for the witnesses that we decide to invite. That way, we can do useful and ground-breaking work in the areas we want to look at.
I was not impressed by last week's meeting, even though we did get useful and interesting information. The Commissioner gave us the same information, generally speaking, that was in her report. I read the report from beginning to end. I did not need to have the information presented to me again. It would have been useful to have a researcher prepare a document setting out the strong points and perhaps the controversial aspects of the Commissioner's report so that we could put her on the hot seat a bit. She is not an ordinary witness. We do not necessarily support everything she says and proposes. We have a right to question her both politely and aggressively. We need these documents before the meeting so that we can read them, analyze them and be ready. We need to prepare our individual questions so that the truth can come out, and it may be that sparks will fly or whatever.
The Chairman: That was the purpose of our preparatory meeting. We should receive the researchers' report a week before.
Senator Corbin: Benchmarking has to be done very well.
Senator Gauthier: Along the lines of what Senator Corbin is saying, we need to prepare our meetings and have background documents. We may have to hire experts in certain areas. We cannot take it for granted that our researcher knows everything. In an area like justice, we will need to give a contract to someone who knows about justice and who may be able to give us better guidance.
Since Senator Keon is on this committee, why not put him in charge of the health care issue and give him permission to hold meetings to prepare documents on these issues with the researchers. I would like Senator Keon to be in charge of organizing the research for our committee so that we can be efficient in our work. I would like Senator Beaudoin to do the research on the justice side, for example. There has been many documents, I have a pile of them at home, and we need to be aware of what is in them. I am not expecting you to read them all, but our researcher can guide us. If she can coordinate the work and take advantage of the knowledge of Senators Beaudoin and Keon, we will be going in the right direction. Make no mistake: Mr. Romanow has finished his work. He said so:
[English]
``Do not bother me any more.'' Mr. Romanow is out of the circuit.
Take the Romanow report and compare it with the — I do not like to say the ``Kirby report.'' I prefer to call it the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. I like that report much better than the Romanow report. The Romanow report is not realistic, unlike the Senate committee report. I should like those reports to be compared so that I can better understand them. I have read each of them.
[Translation]
The Chairman: So we will go ahead with the health care issue. Do we want to come back to look at the role of the Official Languages Commissioner? We started questioning her last week. Does her role, as defined in the Act, enable her to do her work? Do you want us to look more into that?
Senator Beaudoin: I found the meeting with the Official Languages Commissioner very interesting. I learned some things, in particular about how the office works. We know that she has an entourage of employees, officials and important people. If necessary, we could certainly have her come back.
The Chairman: Is there anyone, other than the commissioner, that you would like to meet with to discuss the role of the Official Languages Commissioner?
Senator Corbin: Is it agreed that the commissioner will attend our public meetings?
The Chairman: She is invited.
Senator Corbin: I would like there to be someone here. If, for example, when we are studying health care, certain witnesses say one thing and others say something else, the Commissioner might be able to set the record straight, present a solution or make a proposal, since she has already investigated these various areas.
I would like her to be present so that she can react to comments that are made. I have found that very useful in the past. Max Yalden, the second Commissioner of Official Languages, insisted on coming to our meetings and participated actively, almost as a member of the committee, and it was eye-opening. He often knew more than we did, since he had conducted internal investigations in the various departments and elsewhere. He was able to grill officials who did not give complete answers. I would like the Commissioner to be present when we examine these major issues.
The commissioner is at the half-way point in her seven-year mandate. Once a well-documented analysis is done, I would really like to have her appear before the committee again to tell us what changes should be made to the Act and the public service. The annual report is always rather diplomatic and a bit soft on the government. Sometimes the OCOL makes a lot of noise, but it does not have a strong message and it sometimes does not want to be too blunt. After all, he does not bite the hand that feeds you. It would be useful to force the commissioner to be even more frank about what is not working where the implementation of the Act is concerned. She is capable of that and it is what she is there for. It is up to us to get her to say it.
The Chairman: Mr. Langelier, since you are here on behalf of the commissioner, could you repeat to her the invitation that we gave her last week? We would like her to attend as often as possible or to send someone from the office if she cannot be present. That person could sit with the witnesses or with us.
Senator Gauthier: What Senator Corbin has just said is very important. That is what distinguishes our committee from the joint committee.
The MPs will never agree to have an unelected person sit at the same table with them. Senators will do that. The commissioner is an officer of Parliament. I have always been in favour of that. When I chaired the committee, it was Max Yalden or his successor, Iberville Fortier, who came before our committee, and they had a taste of that: they kept the deputy ministers and the witnesses very honest in what they told us. The commissioner always ended up preparing a report drawing conclusions where he would tell us whether we had had the wool pulled over our eyes, whether we had been well-informed or misled. It was very useful. The MPs did not like it.
The Chairman: Would they be seated at the table here? Do our rules not provide that senators are at the table? MPs cannot sit around our table, but we invite whoever we want as assistants.
Senator Corbin: You know how officials operate. They give a very narrow answer to your question, rarely giving any additional information, and that is where the commissioner can get them to give more. We do not always know how to ask questions of the officials, since we do not have all the information.
The commissioner generally knows a lot more than we do about the implementation of the Act. That is why her presence is important.
The Chairman: I would like you to think about whether we want to invite Minister Dion once he tables his work plan. He is to do that in February. The time passes so quickly. A budgetary authority will also be needed.
I have already approached Mr. Dion and he told me that as soon as his action plan is ready, he will come. The plan will deal with justice, health and Part VII as a whole.
Senator Beaudoin: He has already agreed to come after he tables his plan.
The Chairman: With ministers, you know, you need to repeat you invitation.
Senator Beaudoin: Yes, you need to do that.
The Chairman: You have before you a request for a budgetary authority for the period beginning October 10, 2002, and ending March 31, 2003. We are not seeking a lot of money, since most of our witnesses will be local. This request will be submitted.
Senator Gauthier: He does not know our work plan. This goes up to March 31. If we need researchers or professionals, we will have to hire them and we do not have a budget for that. The minimum that we should ask for is $10,000. That would give us a little more leeway. Otherwise, the research will not be possible. It will be a disaster.
The Chairman: Does the Library of Parliament not provide research services?
Senator Corbin: Yes.
Senator Comeau: Did you not say earlier that a researcher would be present?
The Chairman: Ms. Hudon has been hired, but she is working somewhere else at this time. She will be available as of January 1.
Senator Comeau: Is she on staff with the Library of Parliament?
The Chairman: That is right.
Senator Gauthier: Yes, but if we want to hire a researcher for health care, a good one would cost us $500 a day. A legal researcher would cost us $700 a day. Unless we are able to do the research ourselves. I do not think we should have to work with these restrictions. We should request $10,000 and if we spend it so much the better, if not than that will be too bad.
Senator Comeau: In view of the hour and Senator Gauthier's question, which is something that concerns me, I would like to pursue this matter of hiring experts from outside. I have always had trouble with that. If you spend money outside of the institution this expertise will be lost eventually. I think we should consider that. We could wait until after to ask for a budget increase.
The Chairman: The budget must be adopted this week so that we can begin our work. Are there any other suggestions on the budget?
Senator Gauthier: I move that we request $10,000, Madam Chair.
The Chairman: For professional and other services, or $10,000 total?
Senator Gauthier: Let us say $7,000 for research, professional services and other items. We might be able to travel to the communities, to go on-site. There are five regions in this country that we should visit. At a later date, that is what we should do. You will have to ask the Board for more than $3,000 next March.
The Chairman: Senator Gauthier, this budget only applies until March 31 for the items that we have identified. We cannot travel before March 31. We will have to submit another budget at that time.
Senator Gauthier: I should not have raised that point, but it is something that concerns me. I did not say that we would travel, I said it might be a good idea to think about it. Three thousand dollars until March 31 is not realistic. That will be the smallest budget of all parliamentary committees. I am a member of the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, and the lowest budget we have to consider at this time is $10,000, for the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications, and they do not intend to travel.
The Chairman: You move $7,000 for professional and other services, instead of $3,000. Is that your motion, Senator Gauthier?
Senator Corbin: I have a point of order. That is not on the agenda. Madame Chair, Senator Comeau would like some time to think about it.
The Chairman: That was Senator Gauthier's motion.
Senator Corbin: Do we need any money to operate between now and the end of January?
The Chairman: No.
Senator Corbin: We do not need any money.
The Chairman: The Chair of the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration told me that she could approve this budget this week. We have also requested $400 for a half-day conference, on December 13, 2002 for those who might want to attend the release of the census language statistics. You were sent a message, a letter to that effect last week, and we discussed it. We had provided for an amount of $400 as the registration cost was $40. No one registered. Last week I asked those who were interested to please let us know. No requests were forthcoming.
Senator Corbin: The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs has money. They call it an emergency fund. They have $5,000 which and they can use for ordinary or emergency purposes after consulting the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Senator Comeau, Senator Gauthier, why not agree on a $5,000 amount, change the request to $5,000 and, when we come back in January, we will know where we are going. We do not really know it yet. We want to study health care, but how will we organize our work? That is when we will know and then we will be able to look into additional funding.
Senator Gauthier: The Internal Economy Committee will be meeting tomorrow morning at nine o'clock to prepare budgets up to March 31. I do not want us to be stuck with $3,000, I agree with an amount of $5,000.
Senator Corbin: Senator Comeau, do you agree with $5,000?
Senator Comeau: That's fine.
The Chairman: Do not forget that we already had an advance of $800. Do you agree? We will ask for $5,000.
The committee adjourned.