Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue No. 1 - Evidence - Meeting of January 27, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, January 27, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 11:30 a.m., pursuant to rule 12-13 of the Rules of the Senate, for an organization meeting.
[Translation]
Maxwell Hollins, Clerk of the Committee: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the organization meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Honourable senators, I see a quorum. As clerk of the committee, it is my duty to preside over the election of the chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Senator Maltais: Mr. Clerk, I nominate the Honourable Senator Tardif as chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
Mr. Hollins: Thank you. Are there any other nominations?
Senator Maltais: I don't think so. That would be untoward.
Mr. Hollins: Honourable senators, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Mr. Hollins: I declare the motion carried.
Senator Claudette Tardif (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: It's a pleasure to see you all again. I would like to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy 2016. I would also like to say what a privilege it is to serve as the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages and that I will do my utmost to live up to your expectations. Thank you for your support and your confidence.
Of course, you all recognize the importance of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages, a committee that plays a significant role not only in our parliamentary system, but also for Canadians. We all know that linguistic duality is one of our country's fundamental values and that, very often, we are the people who work to ensure that linguistic duality is respected and grows stronger.
I look forward to working with you all. We can discuss future business at greater length at our next meeting. Today's meeting shouldn't last too long. You all received the agenda. So I am now ready to discuss item 2 on the agenda, which is the election of a deputy chair. I would need a motion to that effect.
Senator Fraser: I nominate the Honourable Senator Poirier.
The Chair: Senator Poirier, do you accept the nomination?
Senator Poirier: Yes.
The Chair: Are there any other nominations? No? Since you have accepted the nomination, Senator Poirier, welcome and thank you. I declare Senator Fraser's motion carried.
Senator Maltais: I'd like to say a few words now, if I may. With you as chair and Senator Poirier as deputy chair of the committee, I think that Canada's linguistic minorities will be very well represented. You are both francophones living in official language minority communities, one in Western Canada and the other in northern New Brunswick. You are both perfectly bilingual. That is the image of Canada we want to portray, so I think that linguistic minorities, be they francophone or anglophone, will be very well represented at this table. Thank you, ladies.
The Chair: Thank you kindly, Senator Maltais. I would also like to say what a pleasure it is to have representatives from Quebec and Quebec's English-speaking community at the table. What a wonderful gathering of skills and expertise we have.
I will now move on to item 3 on the agenda, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. Would someone care to move Motion No. 3?
Senator Maltais: I so move.
The Chair: Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Let us now move on to item 4 on the agenda, which is a motion to publish the committee's proceedings. Would someone care to move the motion?
Senator Fraser: I so move.
The Chair: Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Let us now move on to item 5, a motion for the authorization to hold meetings and to receive evidence when quorum is not present.
The Deputy Chair: I so move.
The Chair: Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Item 6 deals with the adoption of the financial report. The financial report has been handed out; I will give you a few moments to review it. It presents the activities and related expenditures during the Second Session of the Forty-First Parliament.
You will see that, during the session, the committee held 41 meetings, sat for 72 hours, heard from 135 witnesses and submitted 6 reports on its proceedings.
Senator Maltais: I will move the motion.
The Chair: Senator Maltais has moved that the financial report be adopted. Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Item 7 deals with research staff. Would someone care to move the motion?
Senator Seidman: I so move.
The Chair: Senator Seidman has moved Motion No. 7. Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. And since we are on the topic of research staff and analysts, I would now like to turn to Marie-Ève Hudon, our most skilled, professional and dedicated analyst, and invite her to join us at the table. Welcome, Marie-Ève. We are very fortunate to have an analyst of Marie-Ève's calibre.
Item 8 deals with the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. Could I please have a motion to that effect?
Senator Dagenais: I so move. That way, my name will appear in the minutes of the meeting.
The Chair: We will be sure to emphasize it, Senator Dagenais. Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Motion No. 9 pertains to travel. Would someone kindly move the motion?
Senator McIntyre: I so move.
The Chair: Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Motion No. 10 deals with the designation of members travelling on committee business. Would someone kindly move the motion?
Senator Fraser: I so move.
The Chair: Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Let us now move on to the travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
The Deputy Chair: I will move the motion.
The Chair: Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Now, we will turn to the motion dealing with communications.
Senator McIntyre: I so move.
The Chair: Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I declare the motion carried. Items 13 and 14 are not motions; they have to do with the time slot for meetings.
The Deputy Chair: I have a question but I'm not sure whether this is the right time to ask it.
The Chair: Go ahead.
The Deputy Chair: I was wondering whether it was possible to change the meeting time slot of 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. I would suggest 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. for the simple reason that, for several of us, it makes a big difference when it comes to catching the flight to Ottawa.
The change would allow us to take a direct flight in the afternoon, rather than leaving early in the morning and sitting in the Montreal airport for part of the day to make it here for the meeting at 5.
Some of us travel by train, and I was wondering whether that was also the case for other committee members. If memory serves me correctly, very often, we stay in the meeting room until 7:15 p.m. and there aren't any other committees or groups waiting for the room. If it doesn't inconvenience the committee members, changing the time would be preferable.
The Chair: I have no objections to that. Does anyone else?
Senator Maltais: Quite the contrary, I have no problem with that if it would make things easier for the deputy chair and other committee members.
The Deputy Chair: I don't think I am the only one.
Senator McIntyre: I take the train. My train usually gets in around three in the afternoon, but I'm on the train for at least 14 hours. If I leave New Brunswick at 10 p.m., I get to Montreal around 9 a.m. the next day. My train for Ottawa leaves at 12:50 p.m. and gets in at 3 p.m. Then I have to go to my apartment, so 5:30 p.m. would suit me fine.
The Chair: Would that work for everyone? It gives us a bit more time.
Senator Poirier: It would allow me to take a direct late-afternoon flight rather than taking a 9 a.m. flight to make it here by 5 p.m.
The Chair: That fits right into our schedule. So we would meet Mondays from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Moving on to other business, the attendance of senators' staff at in camera meetings. Is the committee amenable to that?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Would someone kindly move the motion?
Senator Seidman: I so move.
The Chair: Is the committee in agreement?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All right, the first meeting will be held on Monday, February 1. Next Monday, it will already be February. In preparation for the meeting, I would ask everyone to think of ideas for future committee business. We could adopt a general order of reference that would authorize us to study the application of the Official Languages Act, invite ministers, such as the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the President of the Treasury Board or the Commissioner of Official Languages. So it would be a general order of reference. Then we could discuss potential future business for the committee.
Please send your suggestions to Max Hollins, our new clerk — whom, by the way, we are very pleased to welcome to the committee — by Friday. We can also discuss them on Monday, but if you already have some ideas, you can pass them on to Max so that we can have them down on paper. I have two or three suggestions I'd like to make, but simply for discussion purposes.
Senator Maltais: I'm not sure whether this is the right place to raise the issue, but you will recall, Madam Chair, that, last year, when the committee was studying Bill S-205, we had to put a meeting on bilingualism on hold. Are we no longer dealing with the issue or can we keep it on the back burner?
The Chair: Bill S-205 or our study?
Senator Maltais: I believe it was during the study of Bill S-205 or Senator Chaput's bill. The committee was studying bilingualism in other regions of the country.
The Chair: I believe that was our study on best language practices.
Senator Maltais: Oh, it's done?
The Chair: It's done, but that doesn't mean that we can't add a second part to the study. That's something we could consider. In fact, we had talked about going to Switzerland or Finland.
Senator Poirier: I think the first part was completed, but not the second part. If memory serves me correctly, we finished the part of the study dealing with Canada, but not the part examining the situation abroad.
The Chair: It's possible, but we would need another order of reference since they are two distinct parts. We definitely finished the first part, but if you think it's still something the committee should examine, we could continue our work, or begin a new study. Your choice.
Senator McIntyre: Generally speaking, we always have two panels, one at 5 p.m., and, if I'm not mistaken, one at 6 p.m. This session, then, the panels will be at 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. Should we continue to have two panels or just one, instead? Think, in particular, about when we are dealing with very important issues.
The Chair: I think it's up to us to decide whether we need more time. It is true that things are sometimes rushed because of the time limit, especially when there are two or three witnesses in each panel. I would be entirely in favour of having just one panel.
Senator McIntyre: Particularly if we are hearing from a department official or a minister directly.
The Chair: Absolutely.
The clerk is telling us that, normally, we would not have more than four witnesses at a time.
Mr. Hollins: Yes, as a general rule, the committee would not hear from more than four witnesses at a time. It's a matter of logistics, so that each witness has an opportunity to answer questions, participate in the discussion and so forth.
Furthermore, we will not always be in this room. My understanding is that the committee usually meets in room 9 of the Victoria Building.
Senator Fraser: Could we stay here?
Mr. Hollins: On Mondays? I could find out. We probably wouldn't have any competition. One other committee meets Monday evenings.
The Chair: Yes, the Human Rights Committee.
Senator Fraser: And, I think the National Security and Defence Committee meets here. I'm not sure, though.
Senator Dagenais: The National Security Committee meets in the Victoria Building, but downstairs.
The Chair: Perhaps we can revisit the question next week.
Senator Fraser: As far as panel size is concerned, I've always thought that having four people per panel is a lot, especially since we are limited to an hour per panel.
I have confidence in the subcommittee's decision-making. It seems to me that adjustments could be made from meeting to meeting.
The Chair: Precisely, depending on the topic.
Senator Fraser: Unfortunately, I won't be here next Monday but I'll try to submit one or two suggestions.
Senator Maltais: You're absolutely right, Senator Fraser. If last year is any indication, we run out of time with certain witnesses; in some cases, an hour just wasn't long enough for committee members to ask all their questions. With other witnesses, however, the discussion ended after a half-hour.
It's tricky for the chair to tell a witness that they can leave in situations where the committee members have asked all their questions after a half-hour, if the meeting is supposed to last an hour. Witnesses need to understand that, if senators have no more questions for them, the committee has finished with them.
It's not a straightforward matter to deal with. But I do agree that hearing from four witnesses is too much. How many of us are usually here for meetings? Is it 8 or 10?
The Chair: Seven or eight, yes.
Senator Maltais: That doesn't leave us much time.
The Chair: Indeed, that doesn't leave much time for questions or for a second round.
Senator Maltais: If a senator's questions or a witness's answers run long, it doesn't leave any time for other committee members.
The Chair: I don't think there should be more than two witnesses per panel and, sometimes, only one witness, depending on the situation.
Senator Maltais: Obviously, when the Commissioner of Official Languages appears, committee members are never short on questions; quite the opposite, they would like the commissioner to stay longer. And that's perfectly normal since the commissioner is the person responsible for the official languages file.
Conversely, when we hear from representatives of group X from a small community, even though they are equally important in our eyes, we may have fewer questions for them in cases when we are dealing with national policy issues.
The Chair: Between the subcommittee, the clerk and our analyst, we'll try to make sure we plan for the appropriate number of witnesses given the amount of time we have. Thank you for your input. Past experience allows us to change things for the better.
Does anyone have any other questions or points to raise?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Okay, then, see you next Monday, at 5:30 p.m. And if you already have suggestions for future business, kindly send them to the clerk. Otherwise, we can discuss them when we meet on Monday. I will ask the clerk to prepare a general order of reference, as we've done in the past. You can also think about the report the committee submitted in June on best practices for language policies and second-language learning in a context of linguistic duality or plurality, specifically about whether you would like to obtain a response from the government.
[English]
Senator Seidman: I should just alert you that I will not be here on Mondays until the Physician-assisted Dying Committee is finished its work in the month of February because I'm representing the Senate on that committee.
The Chair: Good.
Senator Seidman: We will work four days a week, every night, as well as daytime, until we're done on February 26. I just want you to know that I won't be here on Mondays.
The Chair: Thank you. I know that's such an important committee, and it's deserving of all the time that you need to deal with that very important topic.
Senator Seidman: Absolutely.
The Chair: If there's anything, senator, please send it to us.
Senator Seidman: I will. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)