Official Languages Committee on Feb. 5th, 2009

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

Mr. Chair, people are using the word partisanship and saying that the committee didn't work properly, but I would not take responsibility for that. I have been here for 12 years and I have never, in Parliament, seen a minister refuse to appear before a committee. Let us hope it does not happen again. I spoke with the new minister and he told me that he intends to appear before the committee. It will be interesting to talk to the minister in charge. The former minister refused to appear. We had another chair previously. The reason you are sitting there today is because the other chair had to be let go. We had invited witnesses from Manitoba to appear before the committee, and the chair decided to cancel the meeting. The member for Manitoba might be happy to hear that, but the fact remains that witnesses were not heard from; they had to get back on their plane and go back to Manitoba, all because of the chair's decision. We won't even talk about legal challenges.

Mrs. Boucher just said that things were emotional. It always is when people attack the francophonie or minorities in our country. That is what happened in committee, Mr. Chair. I hope that attitudes will change. We are going to do our job, fulfil our responsibilities as a standing committee, work on files openly, call witnesses and have the sensitivity to listen to them. We must not cancel meetings as was done the last time. We are going to report back to the House of Commons and call ministers before the committee to question them. Not a single report on official languages has been tabled in Parliament since 2006. Yet, this is the law in Canada. I hope, Mr. Chair, that things will change and that we will work together.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, on the contrary, the committee tabled an excellent report on the vitality of official languages.

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

That has nothing to do with reports from the government. It is the government's responsibility. It's the law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I thought you were referring to the work of the committee. In fact, the committee tabled a number of excellent reports.

My goodness, there are many side conversations.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

I think we have had sufficient discussion on the issue; we should call the question and make a decision instead of simply heating up this room. In fact, Pablo needs to go lie down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I understand your opinion, Ms. Guay. There are three speakers on the list. I think that we can call the question on the amendment and then come back to the main motion.

Ms. Guay, I think that it is important, this morning, to take the time to look at this motion from all the angles, because systematically, we will have to live with our decision in our future meetings. I am well aware of your perspective, but I am still going to hear from the other members of the committee.

I would ask you to limit your comments, even if you obviously have all the latitude you need as committee members.

Mr. Galipeau.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have kept silent during all the other comments and interruptions, and the reason was to propose exactly what Ms. Guay did. I think that we are ready to call the question.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

They are calling for the question.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I don't think adopting the routine motion from the last Parliament on the question of witnesses is fair, because if we do that, it will mean that one of our members will never get to speak on the committee--never.

There are four rounds, and on each round one Conservative gets to speak, but there are five of us on the committee. It means that at every committee meeting, one of us is not going to be able to ask even one question. But Monsieur Godin will be able to ask four questions, and each member of the Bloc will be able to ask two questions, and one of the three Liberals on the committee will be able to ask a second question. It's not fair.

How can you have one member of the committee allowed to ask four questions, and then have the fifth Conservative member of the committee not even get to ask a question? It's not fair. I'm not suggesting that we split it right down the middle, that we get half the questions. But splitting it 25-25-25 is not fair, because it means that one of us is going to come to this committee for four hours a week and not be able to ask one question. Meanwhile, a member of the New Democrats will be able to ask four questions at each committee meeting, and each member of the Bloc will be able to ask two questions. I don't see the fairness in that.

You know, committee seats are apportioned so that each member gets to participate, but the routine motion, as we adopted it in the last Parliament, is not going to work, seeing as the seats in the House have been completely redistributed, and consequently, the proportionality on the committee has been redistributed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

May I just suggest that we are now about to take--as it looks on the speakers list--a vote on that motion. So if any other motion or subamendment is proposed, you can seek support from the committee and move it.

Madam Glover.

[Shelly Glover, Conservative, Saint Boniface, MB]

I don't want to get this room overheated. Thank you, Mr. Godin, for telling me what happened last year. I am from Manitoba, where linguistic harmony is a reality we experience every day. So, I would like us to live in harmony too.

I am finding it truly difficult to understand why there was partisanship when we voted on the subcommittee, because you have assured me that you are not partisan. I would like to set all that aside. We are going to be hearing from witnesses and hearing ideas that will stimulate debate. If one person asks four questions, there will be some repetition. I would like to know whether there are any other ideas. The more of them we have, the more witnesses will have an opportunity to express their opinion. This is an inclusive process, and we need to collaborate.

I don't want the atmosphere to get any more heated than it already is. I was not here last year. Whatever the case may be, I would like everyone to have the opportunity to participate. That is what I want, and not to get the parties overheated. That is my personal and professional opinion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mrs. Glover. You made an amendment and there was an exchange.

I am now ready to call the question on the amendment by Mrs. Glover.

(Amendment negatived)

Mr. Galipeau.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chair, in light of the discussion that took place on the amendment that was just defeated, and also in light of the questions of proportionality that are in my opinion quite important in the operation of all committees, I would like to make another proposal, which reads as follows:

That witnesses be given ten (10) minutes for their opening statement; that during the questioning on witnesses, there be allocated: for the first round, seven (7) minutes for the first questioner of each party in the following order: the Official Opposition, the second opposition party, the third opposition party and finally the government; for the second round, five (5) minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner from each party in the following order: Official Opposition, the second opposition party and the government; for the third round, five (5) minutes the allocated to questioners from the following parties in this order: the Official Opposition and the government; for the fourth round, five (5) minutes to a questioner from the government; for the fifth round, time permitting and if members so wish, the first round will be repeated with three (3) minutes per questioner.

That is my proposal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

It is essentially identical with regard to the 10 minutes allocated to the witnesses as well as the first round with questioners from each of the four parties. With regard to the second round, you have indicated the following order: the Liberal Party, the Bloc and the government. In the third round, it would be the Liberal Party and the government.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chair, I withdrew references to the names of the political parties and only mentioned their ranking as determined by voters. So this could apply in any other circumstances.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

In the second round, it would be the official opposition, the second opposition party, the government. In the third round, it would be the official opposition, the government. In the fourth round, it would be the government. In the fifth round, it would be...

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

We would go back to the order in the first round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

With three minutes each. Okay. Mr. Galipeau's amendment is on the table. I am now prepared to hear your comments on the amendment.

Mr. Jean, you have the floor.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

I know I'm a visitor to the committee, but I'm just curious about which constituencies, which geographic areas, and which residents the members of the opposition want not to be heard at this committee. I have three francophone communities--

[An hon. member]

It's up to you.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Athabasca, AB]

No, actually it's up to you, because you're suggesting that one of the government members.... So somebody in Canada is not going to be represented properly, is what you're suggesting; they should be ignored. Should my residents be ignored this time, in this series of questions, this day, on this particular issue? Should my francophone residents in my area be ignored, my three communities that are not being heard here because you're not allowing one person to ask questions?

Shouldn't everybody in a democracy be heard, or at least be able to put forward the position of their constituents? What you're suggesting is that my constituents' positions are not important. That's what you're suggesting by this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Jean.

Mr. Chong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

I feel very strongly that we cannot adopt the routine motion as it was adopted in the last Parliament in this committee, because when you look at the timing of the rounds, you'll see that the first round would take 28 minutes, the second round would take 20 minutes, the third round would take 20, and the fourth round would take 20. Typically we are not even going to get to the fourth round, because when you add 28 plus 20 plus 20, after three rounds we'll have gone through about an hour and a quarter of questioning. If you add, in addition to that, the witnesses who are going to testify, and often committee business that we discuss, we're not going to get to the fourth round; we're only going to have three rounds.

So what's going to happen if we have three rounds? Each of the Liberals will have one question. The Bloc, between the two members, will have three questions. The one New Democratic member on the committee will have three questions, and out of the five members here, only three of us will get to ask a question and two of us are sitting here, week in, week out, unable to ask a question. It's not fair.

If one of us misses it, fine. But to have one member on the committee ask three questions and have two other members of the committee not able to ask a question, week in, week out, is simply not fair.

I suggest the amendment proposed by Mr. Galipeau is a good compromise because it allows everyone a chance to ask a question. Mr. Galipeau has proposed an order that would allow each member of the Liberal Party to ask a question. It would allow each member of the Bloc to ask a question. It would allow the member for the New Democrats to ask a question, and it would allow a chance for each member of the government to ask a question.

We then have this fifth round in there, where the other members of the committee, if they want to ask a question, will get a chance.

I think we should go with that; I think it's fair. I certainly don't think the motion that was adopted in the last Parliament is at all fair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chong.

I am going to take advantage of the chair's prerogative and suspend the meeting for five minutes. Rather than accepting motions and hearing comments...

[Some hon. members]

Call the question.