Evidence of meeting #54 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chairman.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. We will now begin the special meeting requested by members of the committee.
Ms. Folco will begin. She is the first on the list.
9:05 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I gave the clerk a motion requesting that this committee meet. I wouldn't call it a special meeting, but rather a regular meeting. Last Tuesday, on May 8, at this time exactly, we were scheduled to have a meeting in order to discuss the Court Challenges Program. Through you, Mr. Chairman, we had witnesses come here. We were very surprised—and I'm speaking for myself and the members of my party—when you cancelled the meeting with no prior notice, approximately two minutes to 9 o'clock.
I would like to state on behalf of the Liberal caucus that there was no reason to cancel that meeting without discussing it first with the committee members. Do not forget that they elected you. You are responsible for your actions and you are accountable before the committee members. That is why I asked for this meeting. I saw no reason justifying the cancellation of that meeting. Until Tuesday morning, two minutes to 9 o'clock, everyone had agreed on that meeting taking place. We all agreed, all parties included, on holding a meeting and on the subject of that meeting. Furthermore, the witnesses who had come from Winnipeg and Montreal were just as surprised as we were to find out that the meeting had been cancelled.
Mr. Chairman, because I have the floor for a few minutes, I would like to add that this may not be a breach of the standing orders, but it is very clearly unusual. I would also like to add that taxpayers' money was wasted that day because witnesses flew in from Winnipeg and drove in from Montreal. Their travel costs were paid by this committee. Let us never forget that costs incurred by the House and this committee are always covered by Canadian taxpayers. If you had discussed the cancellation of this meeting with committee members and if we had made the decision to cancel, then we would also have had the time to notify the witnesses.
For all these reasons, I felt it was important to have this meeting this morning in order to ask you to report to all committee members and to respect the agenda that we all agreed to approximately 10 days or a week ago.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9:05 a.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Mr. Chairman, you cancelled the meeting without discussing this with the opposition parties. I have before me Marleau-Montpetit. On page 843 it states, and I quote: "Where the meeting has been convened by order of the committee, the chair consults with representatives of the various parties before sending the cancellation notice." We never received that notice.
Furthermore, this meeting was cancelled in a cavalier fashion and in a way that was very disrespectful towards the committee members and the witnesses who came here to discuss the Court Challenges Program. Mr. Chairman, you must not forget that you are the committee chairman but you are not its supreme leader. The committee is master of its own agenda and its own schedule.
Furthermore, we had agreed that we were meeting that day in order to discuss the Court Challenges Program, regardless of any other activities taking place in Canadian society, or even internationally.
We are very disappointed with your attitude. You cancelled this meeting in a cavalier fashion and in a way that was disrespectful towards committee members and towards French and English minority language communities in Canada and Quebec who asked us to go through this exercise. This had been initiated precisely in response to these communities' requests.
Mr. Chairman, I would be ashamed in your position. I am very disappointed.
9:05 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, would you like us to leave and then you could make up a schedule, show it to us and we will just do as you please? Is that what the Standing Committee on Official Languages has become? I have been sitting on this committee since 1998 and I have never seen a chairman act in this fashion. It's all very well to read Marleau-Montpetit or the standing orders, but one has to look at the underlying intent of the standing orders.
I understand that a chairman has the right to cancel a meeting if, for example, the witnesses don't show up that morning. That has happened in the past and it has not been a problem. Witnesses have cancelled at the last minute, we have been advised of this, and the meeting has been cancelled. I have seen things like this happen, however, Mr. Chairman, the reasons you gave are an insult to the minority francophone community of Canada. You're telling us that we're too political. Welcome to politics! Is it the Conservative government's intention to tell us now that Question Period has become too political and therefore that will be cancelled as well? I have never seen something like this happen since 1998.You told the media that we have heard enough about the Court Challenges Program.
Mr. Chairman, you are only one individual. You must remain neutral within this committee. You are here to rule when the committee is divided but not to impose your will. You are acting in an anti-democratic fashion, absolutely anti-democratically. You did not even have enough respect to ask to call a special meeting. Nothing prevented you from being respectful enough to call us to a meeting and tell us that you were uncomfortable, if that was the case.
The federal government had to pay to bring witnesses from Winnipeg and Montreal. In the Canadian Press it says that today your party's whip stated that we did not think there would be a hue and cry throughout the country if the committee did not sit. Are you going to call that political? When I think about a committee as important as the Standing Committee on Official Languages and the work that it has done! You said yourself before the cameras that we did a national tour and that we wrote a good report for the House of Commons. And your party's whip said that this wouldn't bother anybody!
Is this committee a waste of time? This is an insult to the francophone community and to minorities. I am very disappointed. I never thought it would get to the point where a chairman would show complete disregard for democracy in Parliament and would take communities' right to speak to us away. I cannot find words to qualify your actions. I think a chairman is important. He is the person who convenes the meetings, the person who allows democracy to express itself and who gives us an opportunity to express ourselves.
Not only did you cancel last Tuesday's meeting but you also cancelled Thursday's meeting. You called no special meeting to discuss this. You simply stated that today we would discuss future business. That means that all the decisions that we took democratically were rejected by one person. That is contrary to democracy in this country. It shows how your government operates and that is not partisanship. It shows that your government acts against the rights of minorities in our country.
You were embarrassed by the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program. That's the real problem. As chairman, you should be ashamed. I look forward to hearing what you are going to say about this. You have the right to cancel a meeting, I acknowledge that, but you must have good reasons for doing so, for example, if the witnesses do not show up and so on. However, you do not have the right to tell us that you do not like the topic, that you have heard enough and that the issue has become too partisan. Allow me to recall the bill implementing the Final Nisga'a Agreement.
At the time, the Reform Party or the Canadian Alliance, which formed the opposition, tabled 471 motions before the House of Commons. We had to vote from Monday evening to 6 o'clock Wednesday morning. Was that a waste of time and money for Canadians? It was costly but that is democracy. The opposition has the right to table motions in the House of Commons and we respected that right. Parliament sat for three days, night and day. Was that partisanship? Could one not question partisanship in that case? Mr. Chairman, who are you to tell us what partisanship is? We are in politics, this is a parliamentary committee and each political party has the right to put questions.
Mr. Chairman, I want to know what your real reasons were. If this was your own decision, then I am very, very disappointed. If it was a government decision, then I am not surprised at all because it reflects the position that it took this past year: it cancelled the Court Challenges Program, the status of women program, and the literacy program. I could give you several other examples.
The government's decision to take that direction has nothing to do with me but it won't prevent the Official Languages Committee from looking into the reasons. Even the Official Languages Commissioner asked for a moratorium on the Court Challenges Program last year, until the study of this issue had been wrapped up. We're not the only ones questioning this. One hundred and seventeen complaints were laid with the Official Languages Commissioner. During our trip throughout all regions of Canada, a trip that you think was useless, you can't say otherwise—You said yourself that this is a good report.
What is the problem Mr. Chairman? What do you think about parliamentary democracy when your whip states that there will no longer be an Official Languages Committee if you are relieved of your duties? Where is democracy in a Parliament that sends soldiers to die in order to implement democracy in other countries while in our own country you are suppressing democracy? You should be ashamed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will continue along the same lines. For a few weeks we have been listening to the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages. If your government abolishes the Official Languages Committee, then maybe it will also want to do away with the official languages portfolio.
Is that the point you are trying to make, Mr. Chairman?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Point of order. These are random assumptions. Let's focus on the current issues. It's quite an exaggeration to extrapolate that the minister wants to shut down the official languages department.
9:15 a.m.
Liberal
Jean-Claude D'Amours Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for ruling that my colleague did not actually have a point of order.
Some serious questions must be asked when we hear the comments that we did in the media with respect to the direction your government might be taking. We have to look at reality. These days we're trying to convince people to vote. We're trying to give young people in schools a reason to vote once they have reached voting age. We're trying to show them that progress is possible and that we live in a democracy.
Living in a democracy also means that we have the right to speak. We have the right to free speech in Canada. Some countries do not have that right. To decide yourself or in collaboration with your party to cancel a meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages—Acting contrary to a democracy is a dictatorship. One needs to be very, very careful. If we want to show our young people and the Canadian public that it is important to vote, then we also have to prove to them that we live in a democracy.
For a few weeks now we have been hearing the Minister responsible for Official Languages tell the House that the committee is master of its own fate and that the committee members are masters of the committee. I would like that minister to come here this morning and explain what she means by masters of the committee when you took a unilateral decision to cancel such an important committee meeting with two minutes' notice.
Members on the other side of the House may have said that enough had been said about the Court Challenges Program, but just because some individuals are no longer interested in the issue does not mean that we, the official languages communities, must automatically go down on our knees before them and stop moving forward.
The cancellation of the Court Challenges Program was criticized by everyone. I heard some individuals say that we shouldn't be concerned, that we still had the right to go before the courts but that we would have to go it alone or request legal aid.
The purpose of the study of the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program was to ensure that official languages communities would be respected if certain legislation or jurisdictions attempted to eliminate or restrict their rights. The decision to call witnesses before the Official Languages Committee was not made two minutes before the meeting began. I came through the door that you see, people were here, and I was in a good mood because we were going to study in a proper, thorough manner the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program. Now we can't do that.
I read the comments that you made to the various media. It's unfortunate, but we're in politics to make policy. If I didn't want to be part of a political party, then I would be an independent member. Whether you like it or not, there will always be some partisanship at a certain level. That is the reality in Canada.
We have the right to hold partisan opinions. That being said, the Official Languages Committee has always worked to improve the lives of our citizens and has always attempted to advance the cause that is dear to our hearts. I have been a member of this committee since I was first elected in 2004 and I can tell you that I think that this decision was unacceptable.
You could have made the decision one, two or three days before the meeting, but you decided to shut things down two minutes before we were scheduled to convene, with no explanation. You could have at least given us an acceptable explanation. In saying that you thought the previous meeting had been too partisan, you clearly went too far. One has to be able to respect committee members' wishes.
Thank you.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to add that we are not aware of the reasons that prompted you to cancel last Tuesday's meeting. To add insult to injury, you only made these reasons known in the evening before the cameras, while you and I were being interviewed by CBC television.
I will not speak for long on this, but I would like to point out that you gave your reasons to the media before you gave them to the committee members. You are responsible for explaining your actions to this committee's members and that is why we are here this morning.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
We have several motions before us, including one from Mr. Godin. As chairman, I feel uncomfortable with moving on to another item before dealing with this motion. I will therefore ask the clerk to read it.
9:20 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Ms. Danielle Bélisle
Mr. Godin, I would like to point out that you have two motions. Would you like to withdraw the first one?
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I would like it to be read because I'm not sure which is which.
9:25 a.m.
The Clerk
We are withdrawing the first motion?
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
The Clerk
I will therefore read the motion tabled by Mr. Godin, that is the second motion on the orders of the day.
Is that correct, Mr. Godin?
9:25 a.m.
The Clerk
The motion reads as follows:
That the Chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, Mr. Guy Lauzon, be relieved of his duties as chair following a decision made on his own accord to cancel a scheduled May 8, 2007 meeting of the Committee which was to study the issue of the Court Challenges Program. The chair acted against the will of the Committee and overstepped his role as chair. As a consequence, he has lost the confidence of the Committee.