Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Official Languages
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of April 24, 2006
OTTAWA, Monday, April 24, 2006
The Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages met this day at 4 p.m. to plan committee business.
[Translation]
Ms. Gaëtane Lemay, Clerk of the Committee: I see a quorum. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages' organization meeting. I am Gaëtane Lemay, the clerk of the committee, and it is incumbent upon me to preside over the election of the chair as the first order of business today. I am ready to take your nominations.
Senator Comeau: I move that Senator Maria Chaput be the chair of this committee.
Ms. Lemay: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Comeau that the Honourable Senator Chaput do take the chair of this committee. Are there any other motions? Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Ms. Lemay: I invite Senator Chaput to take the chair.
Senator Maria Chaput (Chairman) in the chair.
The Chairman: Honourable senators, thank you for this show of confidence; it is with pride that I assume the chairmanship of the Standing Senate Committee on Official Languages.
We are now going to proceed to the election of the deputy chair.
Senator Losier-Cool: I move that Senator Andrée Champagne be elected deputy chair of this committee.
The Chairman: Is Senator Champagne willing to accept this nomination?
Senator Champagne: It would be an honour.
The Chairman: Is it pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Let us now turn to item 3 on the agenda, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. The Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure has to be composed of the chair, the deputy chair, and one other member of the committee, to be designated after the usual consultation. The subcommittee must be empowered to make decisions on behalf of the committee with respect to its agenda, to invite witnesses, and to schedule hearings.
Senator Losier-Cool: Does that mean that we have to appoint a third person now?
The Chairman: Not at the moment, no. We are authorizing that the committee be struck, and subsequently, pursuant to the regulations, we will designate a third member.
Senator Robichaud: The motion authorizes the committee to hold consultations on the matter. Let us move the motion.
The Chairman: Very well. Is the motion carried?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: The motion is carried.
Item 4 concerns printing committee proceedings and reads as follows: that the committee prints its proceedings; and that the chair be authorized to set the number to meet demand.
Senator Tardif: I move the motion.
Senator Robichaud: As I am a new member of this committee, I would like to know how many copies have been printed in the past.
Ms. Lemay: It depended on the number of witnesses that the committee heard. It tended to range from 100 to 250 copies.
The Chairman: Does that answer your question? Are there any further questions? Are you in favour of the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: The fifth item provides authorization to hold meetings when a quorum is not present. I should point out that these are all motions that have been adopted in the past; there is nothing new here. These are the standard motions for an organization meeting. The motion states the following:
That, pursuant to rule 89, the chair be authorized to hold meetings, to receive and authorize the printing of the evidence when a quorum is not present, provided that a member of the committee from both the government and the opposition be present.
Senator Champagne: If I understand it correctly, this motion is for those instances when witnesses have come to Ottawa from somewhere or other, but for some reason we do not have quorum. It would allow us to hear the witnesses so that they would not have to come back. I realize that it would not be standard practice, but it makes sense to have such a provision when the situation arises.
The Chairman: Yes, that is exactly why we are seeking approval to do so. May I have a motion?
Senator Robichaud: I so move.
The Chairman: Discussion? Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: The sixth item deals with the financial report.
Ms. Lemay: You will be provided with copies.
Senator Robichaud: It is for the last session, is it not?
The Chairman: Exactly, it is for the last session.
Senator Robichaud: I move the motion.
The Chairman: Would you like the clerk to explain the expenditures?
Senator Comeau: I move the motion.
The Chairman: Are there any questions? Is everybody in favour of adopting the financial report?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: The next motion concerns research staff. It is moved:
That the committee ask the Library of Parliament to assign analysts to the committee;
That the chair be authorized to seek authority from the Senate to engage the services of such counsel and technical, [...];
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to retain the services of such experts as may be required by the work of the committee; and
That the chair, on behalf of the committee, direct the research staff in the preparation of studies, analyses, summaries and draft reports.
Senator Losier-Cool: I move the motion.
The Chairman: Are there any questions? Is everybody in favour of the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: The eighth item on the agenda concerns the authority to commit funds and certify accounts. The motion reads as follows:
That, pursuant to section 32 of the Financial Administration Act, and section 7, chapter 3:06 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority to commit funds be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee; and
I am going to ask the clerk to explain this motion because, as I recall, it has not always been interpreted the same way in the past. What is meant by ``...conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee?''
Ms. Lemay: Any one of the three incumbents, in other words, the chairman, the deputy chairman, and the clerk, is authorized to sign contracts and pay bills on behalf of the committee. One signature suffices, all three are not required. It goes without saying, however, that no contract is ever awarded without the approval of, at least, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. It is just to facilitate paying bills.
The Chairman: The motion goes on to state:
That, pursuant to section 34 of the Financial Administration Act, and section 8 of the Senate Administrative Rules, authority for certifying accounts payable by the committee be conferred individually on the chair, the deputy chair, and the clerk of the committee.
Senator Tardif: I move the motion.
The Chairman: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: Item nine concerns travel. The motion reads as follows:
That the committee empower the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure to designate, as required, one or more members of the committee and/or such staff as may be necessary to travel on assignment on behalf of the committee.
Would somebody move the motion?
Senator Comeau: I so move.
Senator Robichaud: Madam Chairman, if the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure makes such a decision, a report explaining who travelled and where they went ought to be tabled. Not all committees produce such a report. Do you follow me?
The Chairman: No, not really. Could you provide further explanation?
Senator Robichaud: If, for example, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure were to designate Senator Comeau to represent the official languages committee at an SNA meeting in France, or elsewhere, I would suggest that a report be tabled. This would ensure that the committee was aware that one or more members had travelled on assignment to represent the committee.
The Chairman: I think that is what we have always done in the official languages committee.
Ms. Lemay: Informally, yes.
The Chairman: Would you like it to be done in a more formal fashion?
Senator Robichaud: Yes, I would.
Ms. Lemay: Do you want to amend the motion?
Senator Robichaud: No, as long as we have an understanding, there is no need to amend the motion.
The Chairman: I have no problem with Senator Robichaud's proposal. We can ensure that it is done on a more formal basis, without necessarily having to amend the motion.
Senator Plamondon: But if it is not set down in black and white, it will always be open to debate.
Ms. Lemay: It could be recorded in the minutes of proceedings for the meeting.
The Chairman: Would recording it in the relevant minutes of proceedings suffice, Senator Plamondon?
Senator Plamondon: Yes.
The Chairman: Are there any further questions on this item? Would you also be happy with it being included in the minutes of proceedings, Senator Robichaud?
Senator Robichaud: Yes.
The Chairman: Is everybody in favour of Item number 9?
Honourable Senators: Yes.
The Chairman: Item 10 concerns the designation of members travelling on committee business. The motion reads as follows:
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be authorized to:
(1) determine whether any member of the committee is on ``official business'' for the purposes of paragraph 8(3)(a) of the Senators Attendance Policy, published in the Journals of the Senate on Wednesday, June 3, 1998; and
(2) consider any member of the committee to be on ``official business'' if that member is: (a) attending an event or meeting related to the work of the committee; or (b) making a presentation related to the work of the committee.
Senator Losier-Cool: Is this for official business?
The Chairman: Yes, for official business. Does somebody want to move the motion?
Senator Losier-Cool: I so move.
Senator Robichaud: Could we also ensure that such activity be recorded in the minutes of proceedings?
The Chairman: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Robichaud: I just want to make sure that we are kept up to speed with what is happening.
The Chairman: I seem to recall that last year requests were first brought to the attention of the committee. Am I right?
Ms. Lemay: But we do not always have enough time to do so.
The Chairman: But you would be happy as long as it was recorded in the minutes of proceedings?
Senator Robichaud: That would be fine.
The Chairman: You too, senator? Are you in favour of motion number 10?
Senator Robichaud: It is fine by me.
The Chairman: Carried. We are now at travelling and living expenses of witnesses.
That, pursuant to the Senate guidelines for witness expenses, the committee may reimburse reasonable travelling and living expenses for one witness from any one organization and payment will take place upon application, but that the chair be authorized to approve expenses for a second witness should there be exceptional circumstances.
Is anybody willing to move the motion?
Senator Tardif: I move the motion.
Senator Plamondon: I have a question. In other committees, I have seen cases of witnesses travelling a long way, from Vancouver, for example, and only being given five minutes to speak before being cut off and rescheduled. It is all very well to pay their expenses, but in such cases, the expenses have to be paid for a second time, provided they accept to come again in order to have a true opportunity to provide testimony. Putting witnesses at the end of the list is a good way of eliminating them. We do not get to hear their testimony. It undermines the quality of debate in committee.
Senator Robichaud: I do not understand —
Senator Plamondon: Let us say, for example, that the last group of witnesses to appear before the committee comes from Vancouver. They will be given 10 minutes before the committee, and their expenses will be covered. However, if there is not enough time for them to provide their testimony, the committee would have to request that they come back to Ottawa again so that they can be heard, and we would have to pay their expenses a second time.
Senator Robichaud: I think that, first of all, we should make an effort to hear from them, if we invited them.
Senator Plamondon: That is the first thing to do, I agree with you. But in this case, because we are talking about travelling expenses, perhaps we could consider paying for a second visit, if a witness did not get the opportunity to be heard.
Senator Comeau: That is a given. I would tend to agree with Senator Robichaud.
Senator Plamondon: Where is that written down?
Senator Comeau: It is a bit different, but when you have witnesses from British Columbia whose expenses you are covering, and you are hearing from them last, whereas your first witnesses are from Ottawa or Toronto, you would seriously need to reconsider your planning. Witnesses from British Columbia simply should not be called to appear last. There is a chance they may not get the opportunity to appear at all. That would certainly raise some concerns. For the time being, there is nothing prohibiting witnesses from appearing twice.
Senator Plamondon: I raised the matter because it happened last year in another committee. We had witnesses from British Columbia who told me they were unhappy because they were only given seven to eight minutes and had not had enough time to testify.
The Chairman: Your point is well taken, and, Senator Comeau, you are absolutely right, this type of thing should not occur. Thank you. Is that okay?
Senator Plamondon: Yes.
The Chairman: That was item number 11 on traveling expenses. Was it carried?
Senator Comeau: Yes.
The Chairman: Item 12, electronic media coverage of public meetings.
That the chair be authorized to seek permission from the Senate to permit coverage by electronic media of its public proceedings with the least possible disruption of its hearings; and
That the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to allow such coverage at its discretion.
Would someone like to move the motion?
Senator Plamondon: I will.
The Chairman: Senator Plamondon. Do you have any questions of clarification?
Senator Losier-Cool: How much of a priority is the Standing Committee on Official Languages when it comes to CPAC? I do not believe they can broadcast every committee meeting.
Ms. Lemay: Committees are not assigned a level of priority. Requests are made to the broadcasting team. It should be noted that there are four rooms which are properly equipped for broadcasting. This is not one of them. It does not mean that we could not be broadcast. It does mean that if we make a request and it is granted, we would have to go to another room. When there is a conflict between two committees that are sitting at the same time and both want broadcasting out of the same room, the decision is made by the whips. What do they base their decision on? Most often, on the witnesses which will be appearing before the committees.
Obviously the Governor of the Bank of Canada will go ahead of the President of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne. That is how they do things. Perhaps, Senator Losier-Cool, you are under the impression that the Standing Committee on Official Languages is not a priority at all? The fact that the committee was not broadcast at all during the last session has nothing to do with matters of priority. The committee had never adopted this resolution and no member had ever expressed a desire to do so.
Senator Losier-Cool: When other committees hear from ministers they request broadcasting. Perhaps the minister would take precedence over the Governor of the Bank of Canada. Perhaps not before the President of the FCFA. I think that when it comes to ministers or the commissioner, we have to make the request and make sure we have a room that is properly equipped for broadcasting.
Senator Plamondon: Perhaps the subject matter will be hot enough to be of interest to the media, what do you say?
Senator Robichaud: Does the media not have a standing invitation to meetings?
Ms. Lemay: They are public.
Senator Losier-Cool: The media, yes, but in this case we are talking about CPAC, and getting a room. Even though there is no order of priority, some committees consider themselves to be a priority. That is what I meant to say. So, if we are to hear from ministers, or the commissioner, we have to make sure we file a request quickly. I made my point.
Senator Robichaud: I support —
The Chairman: Your point is clear and has been duly noted; so are you moving the motion, Senator Robichaud?
Ms. Lemay: I think it was Senator Plamondon.
The Chairman: Senator Plamondon had moved it. Very well. So, do you all agree to the broadcasting of committee proceedings?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: Carried.
Item number 13, use of electronic mail.
That documents be distributed to the members and staff of this committee via electronic mail whenever possible.
Who would like to move this motion?
Senator Comeau: I will.
The Chairman: Do you have any concerns? No? You agree to item 13? Carried.
Item number 14 is for your information. Time slot for regular meetings.
Our committee will be sitting in room 256-E, Centre Block, and we have the same time slot as in previous years, on Mondays, from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Senator Comeau: Every alternate Monday?
Ms. Lemay: The schedule does not mention that. According to the schedule, it is every Monday.
Senator Comeau: Every Monday.
The Chairman: Do you have a preference, or would you rather discuss future business? Perhaps at some point we will have to hold meetings every Monday because we will be unable to sit on the Monday of a long weekend. Do you want to settle this issue straightaway or set it aside? Very well, we can discuss it another time.
Senator Robichaud: Could we, if necessary, start the meeting at 5 p.m. rather than 4 p.m., or are we not able to do that?
Ms. Lemay: No, a meeting that starts at 5 p.m. would be within our time slot.
The Chairman: All right. That takes us to Item number 15.
Senator Robichaud: With respect to witnesses appearing via video conference, because they have mobility issues, should we discuss that now so that the committee may be authorized to do that?
Ms. Lemay: It is not necessary, because witnesses who appear via video conference are considered physically present. Video conferencing can be authorized at any time.
Senator Robichaud: Does that still involve costs?
Ms. Lemay: Less so than covering travelling expenses.
Senator Robichaud: Very well, thank you.
The Chairman: If you have no further comments, we will move to the following item on our agenda: committee business. To do so, we must meet in camera.
Senator Robichaud: In the present case, what exactly does ``in camera'' mean?
Ms. Lemay: We would stop the public broadcast of our proceedings, but that is not mandatory. Reporters may also leave when we meet in camera. If you do not object to the discussion being held in public, the committee may continue in that way.
Senator Robichaud: Can the support staff stay?
Ms. Lemay: The committee may adopt a motion to that effect.
The Chairman: Would you like to do that, or would you like us to meet in camera right away, as defined by the clerk?
Senator Comeau: If we were to continue in camera, we can then decide who can stay.
Ms. Lemay: You could adopt a motion right away to authorize senators' staff to stay in the room despite the meeting being in camera, and then we could suspend proceedings for one minute, to go from full broadcast to partial broadcast mode.
Senator Comeau: I am ready to move that staff remain in the room.
The Chairman: All right. Are all in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chairman: We will suspend proceedings for one minute and resume sitting in camera.
The committee continued in camera without reporting.