Official Languages Committee on May 1st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Ms. Folco is absolutely correct. The goal of the hearing is not for Hockey Canada to come and say whether Mr. Doan is guilty or not and to judge him. Simply put, the goal is for them to explain why, in the current context, they chose him to represent Canada at the World Ice Hockey Championship. It's as simple as that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mrs. Boucher.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

As a francophone and a Quebecker, I agree with Mr. Malo. In the motion that I am reading, we should remove the reference to Sport Canada, which has nothing to do with this.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

No, that is not what I said. The motion is intended to summon the representatives of Hockey Canada and Sport Canada to appear before the committee to explain their decision to name Shane Doan captain of the team.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That is their choice. You do not want to know whether he is guilty or not.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Not at all.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

We want to know how come, given the nature of the allegations, he can represent a Canadian team. That is basically what we want to know.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I ask that we call the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm thinking through how this possibly happened. You have Hockey Canada, and their goal is to win hockey, so they pick the best guy to be captain of their team. There are responsibilities and decisions that he has to make. They picked a captain for a reason. You can bet that they discussed this, because hockey affects les francophones et les anglophones. I'm sure Hockey Canada had this discussion about the impact it would have on fans, particularly les Québécois et les francophones. So they had that discussion and they knew of the allegations, obviously, but they made their decision. My concern is that we're a federal committee, dealing with important federal matters, and here we are jumping into the middle of a hockey decision over allegations that have not been proven yet.

When the witnesses sit there, I can hear what they're going to say already. They're going to say, “Our job is to win. We picked the best captain possible. Yes, there are allegations against him, but he is not yet guilty.”

If he were guilty it would change absolutely everything, but right now it's just going to become a discussion of opinion. Their opinion is that he's the best captain and he's not guilty. Your opinion might be that he may not be the best captain and there are allegations. It will just become a discussion of opinion.

My worry is that as a parliamentary committee working at the federal government level, we're injecting ourselves into something over what are right now allegations that have not been proven. That's where I'm coming from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I totally disagree with Mr. Lemieux, Mr. Chair. This is the symbol of our country. Given that the allegation is there, proven or not, how do you think the people will feel when they go there? We have a responsibility.

If they want to come here and just sit and say they're not going to talk, that will be their problem, not ours. If they want to tell Canadians they want to shut up because they feel they have chosen the best person, given what our nation is all about, that will be their choice. It will be their choice, and Canadians will know it is their choice.

I think it's our responsibility now. I'll say it again: I'll be supporting their coming here, and if they want to just come here and shut up, that will be their problem, not mine, but I have the right as a parliamentarian to raise this question to them. To know what was going on, to know what people feel about it, and in response say, “I'm going to appoint that person” is like saying “I just don't care about the rest of Canada”.

I want them to come and tell us that, if that's what they feel about it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Ms. Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

I find your comments quite unacceptable, Mr. Lemieux. Furthermore, they have been recorded.

The reputation—

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I haven't made a proposal, by the way.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Yes. I'm just telling you what I think of it.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Yes, and that is incredible. I have not made a proposal; for the time being we are just talking.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Let me finish, Mr. Lemieux. I let you speak, even though I can tell you I wanted to interrupt.

First of all, if Canada has a national sport, it is certainly hockey. It is not volleyball, it is hockey. For Canadians generally and for French Canadians particularly, hockey is the sport. For Quebeckers and francophones elsewhere in the country, this sport allows people to become national heroes. It is a sport with which Canadians identify. In fact, when we ask people across the country what distinguishes us from the English or from Americans, for example, they mention hockey. Americans play hockey, but it does not have the same importance for them. For us, it is important. I would like to remind everyone that hockey is what has enabled French Canadians—and I am using the term on purpose—to become known and to overcome many of the problems they faced.

Second, Canada has a world-wide reputation. We all recognize that Canada does not accept discrimination, that it reacts against it. We are talking here about the World Championships. We are told that the best individual is chosen, regardless of his ideas and remarks, but at issue here is a game in a sport that is almost the most precious symbol Canadians and French Canadians have, with the exception of the Charter of Rights. I have a great deal of difficulty accepting the fact that internationally, the captain of the Canadian team could have said what it is claimed he said—and here I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. Whether he made the remarks or not, the fact remains that the people who decided to choose him as captain showed a flagrant lack of sensitivity, in light of what hockey represents and the effect that this individual's remarks had. This is totally unacceptable.

We do not want to know what he said or did not say. The courts will decide that. As others before me have said, I would just like to emphasize that we are talking about an important symbol of our country, and as committee members charged with monitoring the progress made by official language minority communities, we cannot let this comment go or the decision that followed it. I think this is absolutely fundamental.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Malo.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Lemieux, you were saying earlier that regardless of what people are like, their athletic ability should take priority. So we are talking about the best guy for the job. A captain of a team is suppose to show leadership, motivate the team and be a role model. In this case, whether or not this person made the remark that has been attributed to him, he is hardly a unifying role model for Quebeckers and francophones elsewhere in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. D'Amours.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Could Mr. Lemieux wait for his turn, please? Could he please let me speak? I would appreciate it if everyone had a turn, particularly since I haven't said a word so far. You may say whatever you like, Mr. Lemieux, to defend what you said a few moments ago, but the fact remains that you did say it.

Whether we are talking about Hockey Canada or Sport Canada, a person is not automatically chosen captain because he is the best athlete. Some individuals are thrown out or disciplined for less. We have to take the situation into account, since this is the Official Languages Committee, and its job is to do everything it can to ensure that the official languages, both English and French, are respected in this country.

In light of such negative comments about one of the two communities, we have to do our job and be big enough people to tell this individual that he is going to have to sit on the bench, no matter how good an athlete he may be. It is really too bad. The prestige of being the team captain will go to people who do not have this type of ambiguous attitude.

It is deplorable to have to hear comments of this type here at this committee. This is not Sport Canada or some language branch, but rather the Committee on Official Languages. Whether we are talking about Sport Canada, Hockey Canada or any other federal institution, we must defend the official languages and ensure that both communities are respected. That is what we should be working toward. We cannot behave as though the official languages are important some of the time and less important the rest of the time. They are important all of the time. We are supposed to be defending the official languages all the time, we are supposed to ensure that anglophones in Quebec are defended and that francophones living outside Quebec have their rightful place and are convinced that their government and their members of Parliament are defending them. We cannot pass the buck and say we accept this situation just because the person is a good athlete, regardless of his opinions, and regardless of what he may have said or the controversy that it caused.

As I was saying earlier, people have been disciplined or been benched or dismissed for less. Today we are talking about the World Ice Hockey Championships, at which the country is represented by men who are very good at their sport. One thing is certain: the captain of the team must deserve to hold that position. All Canadians, not just some, must be convinced that he deserves this honour. The allegations we are hearing at the moment raise enough doubts for people to conclude that the wrong decision was made. If at a future championship the ambiguity and doubt have disappeared, perhaps this person could be appointed captain. But what is going on at the moment is unacceptable, and it is unacceptable to hear the decisions made by the authorities being defended at the Official Languages Committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

What I'd like to say is, if you want to attack me for what I've said, then put your BlackBerrys down, take note of what I said, and stop telling me what I said when I didn't say it.

I'm not defending Shane Doan. I'm not saying that I chose him as the best man for the team. I'm telling you what I think they will say. I was very clear about that: what I think they will say.

In sharing that, I think we should be able to have a discussion here. I'm not attacking any of you. I am simply discussing the motion, as we're supposed to be doing.

How do you respond? You get louder. You attack. You say things I didn't say, or you interpret them in ways I did not say them. To me that is not fruitful discussion. If you want to discuss a motion, then let's discuss the motion. I don't need a five-minute lecture on the official languages committee and what we do here. That's not what I was calling into question.

That's the point I want to make. Thank you.