Official Languages Committee on June 23rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Galipeau, your turn.

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

Mr. Chair, my friend Peter is complaining, but we are here because I have already made some concessions. The fact that I reversed the order of the first round, which the committee members had proposed last week, in order to give the official opposition the first opportunity to speak means there is more time between their first and second speaking opportunities.

But if they want to go back to the original proposal, it might make up for that. I, personally, think that the solution I put on the table already shows some openness.

Nevertheless, I know how difficult it is for the opposition parties to deal with the outcome of the May 2^nd election. But they were the ones who triggered the end of the 40^th Parliament. They were all very much in agreement here at this table, when we were the minority. So they have to deal with the outcome of the May 2^nd election and realize that Canadians did not make a mistake. This is how it is now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Galipeau.

Mr. Harris, go ahead.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

If you want to bring up May 2^nd, let's be clear that the government side has 6 committee members who represent 40% of the population and that, on our side, we have 5 members who represent 60% of the population. It doesn't match up.

Mr. Aubin's motion is respectful of parliamentary traditions and the fact that one party should not speak twice in a row. And we aren't straying too far from tradition in terms of giving parties an opportunity to speak and allowing the third or fourth party to take the floor more than once. I think it may be time to admit that the only reason we do not have a consensus is that the government side is not willing to give the third party more than one opportunity to speak.

We are going to have a great many problems in this committee if we always take that route. We have a lot of work ahead us. Just yesterday in the House, documents were submitted in one official language only. That is a huge problem, and we must take the time to address it. If we stay on this point for days or until the fall, we will have done no work. That does not reflect very well on us, on you, on official languages or on Parliament even. I think the time has come to make a decision. I think that both sides need to show a lot more give and less take.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Aubin.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, I want to thank Mr. Galipeau for being open and changing the order of the first round. Nevertheless, since this is important to me, I am going to try to push your openness a bit further still. It is obvious to me as well that during the May 2^nd election, Canadians clearly expressed their desire to be governed differently. I think this first meeting is a perfect opportunity to choose compromise over confrontation. Mild confrontation, to be sure, since we are only talking about a vote, but regardless of our political stripe, we would all come out on top if we could come to an agreement through compromise rather than a vote. I think that would really put us on the right track for future discussions and meetings. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have always accepted the outcome of the May 2^nd election. The very makeup of this committee is a direct reflection of those election results, but the problem is this: How do we make sure that all the factors are taken into account, in other words, the principle upheld by the government party whereby every member can speak, and the principle we have always had whereby the official opposition begins the first round of questioning and the third party goes second?

We do it with Mr. Aubin's solution. I do not see why we could not reach an agreement, a compromise, that would do everything we want. Why are we still discussing the same issue for a third meeting now?

I have trouble wrapping my head around the idea that the government members do not wish to make this last little change to reach a compromise. I think we could leave here today with something that may not satisfy everyone 100% but that could hit everyone's key elements. That is all we expect. What do we do if we choose not to reach a compromise? What are our options?

This is our third meeting, and we are still coming up short. What are our options? There are now four NDP members at this table. We could ask the chair to hold meetings this summer, and he would have to agree. In fact, if four members sign a document calling on the chair to hold a meeting in the summer, he would be bound by the rules to do so. He would have no choice.

I don't know whether anyone at this table would want to convene in the middle of the summer, but that would be one possibility. Mr. Aubin's proposal is full of compromise, a steadfast Canadian tradition. His proposal would ensure that we do not have to convene in the summer, cut into our vacation time with our families or stop our work in our ridings. Mr. Weston knows full well, as I do, that it is not easy to come back from British Columbia, but we are prepared to do so if need be.

The government members could just put an end to this entire debate by agreeing to a compromise that we are all in agreement with and that does everything you said. We listened very carefully to everything you proposed to us. And Mr. Aubin has addressed everything you proposed.

I don't understand this lack of flexibility, but we still have to work together, regardless. I think that if the government side said it was prepared to accept this compromise, we could take a different approach at our next meeting and do the work we are supposed to do—study official languages across the country and ensure they are being respected.

I will certainly have more to say. But I would like to talk about the issue of representation. The makeup of our committee reflects the makeup of Parliament following the May 2^nd election. And yet, when you look at the electoral map and the regions with the largest francophone and anglophone minorities, you see that nearly all of those ridings are now represented by the NDP. When you look at that bilingual proportion—francophone and anglophone minorities—you see that nearly all those ridings are represented by the NDP.

So I do not think it is too much to ask to establish some fairness when it comes to official languages and thus not deny the official opposition—which represents all those regions—the opportunity to speak for a half-hour while witnesses are being questioned. It is normal that we be represented in every round. We have accommodated your requests.

Mr. Chair, I am simply asking the government side to show some flexibility and meet us in the middle so we can finally put an end to this debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I would have to agree with my colleagues.

We have spent several meetings talking about this, and the time has really come to do something. We have to make a decision. I think the solution put forward by my colleague Mr. Aubin addresses everyone's criteria fully.

Of course, it may not tick every single one of our boxes, but we have to be willing to show some flexibility, as Mr. Galipeau did earlier by wanting to respect the tradition of giving the official opposition the first opportunity to speak.

I think we may be forgetting something my colleagues have already mentioned. Our voting system is flawed, and the visible outcome of that system in the House—the number of seats allocated to the various parties—is often far from representative of the public's desires.

We all have a duty, for the duration of our mandate, to make a conscious effort to try to correct those flaws in the system. We have been mandated to represent constituents, to express opinions, and I think we should at least make an effort to give everyone an opportunity to speak.

With that in mind, I have no problem giving Mr. Bélanger the floor twice. He, too, will have valid points to make, and they need to be taken into account.

In the May 2^nd election, Canadians gave us a steady and clear mandate to work towards changing how we interact with one another. And that applies to what goes on in the House, as well as in committees. We must take a much more collegial approach than in the past.

I am part of the new generation of fresh faces on the Hill, a generation that may have a slightly different vision, a generation that has grown a bit weary of the old way of doing things. I think Mr. Aubin's solution is a step in the right direction, a step towards a better approach, an improved attitude and tangible progress.

We should make a conscious decision to accept this amendment, which seeks to make up for all those little shortcomings that were evident before.

As Mr. Julian mentioned, we are prepared to move over and take a back seat for 20 or so minutes to ensure that every Canadian receives some representation, proportionately speaking. And that still gives the government side a certain advantage, don't forget.

For all those reasons, I think we are really looking at the perfect amendment here and should not spend too much longer debating the matter.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Menegakis, you have the floor, followed by Mr. Bélanger and then Mr. Aubin.

Mr. Menegakis has the floor, please.

Could we just have one conversation, please?

Mr. Menegakis, go ahead.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I need some clarification from Mr. Aubin before I make my point on the second round.

Unless I am mistaken, you said the order would be NDP, Conservative Party, NDP, Conservative Party, NDP, Conservative Party, Conservative Party, right?

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

No, it's Liberal Party and Conservative Party.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Oh, it's Liberal Party and Conservative Party.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Correct.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

The problem I have is that the proposed arrangement allows for 68 minutes of questioning. In a one-hour deposition, 10 minutes goes to the person or organization that will be presenting. That will leave 50 minutes. In a 50-minute scenario, that will cut the last three or four people from being able to ask questions. It cuts out two Conservatives. That's the problem I have with that. That's why I'm in accordance with the proposal that we made.

In the proposal that we made, if somebody needs to be cut at the end, it will be a New Democrat and a Conservative, and if three people need to be cut at the end because of the lack of time, it will be two Conservative and one New Democrat.

I find that to be reasonable. I find it to be a fair concession on our side. I think it is a very good compromise to move forward with.

I listened very carefully to everything that our friends from across the floor said. We're all here to represent Canadians. There are francophones all over this country. As we move forward, we all want to represent the francophone community and the anglo community fairly and equitably and professionally as one committee working properly.

Quite frankly, at the risk of sounding perhaps a little bit off, it's a real stretch when we count how many minutes are between when one party speaks and when another party speaks. Our proposal, in the first and second round, gives everybody an opportunity to speak. If somebody gets cut off at the end, it's not the member from the Liberal Party. He speaks in the first round, he'll speak in the third round, he'll speak in the fifth round. Every time we go around, even to our deposition, the third party will always have an opportunity to speak among the first speakers.

This proposal, our proposal, the initial motion by Mr. Galipeau, allows everybody to speak. If somebody gets cut off at the end, it will be the majority party and the opposition party. If more people need to be cut off, the next person to be cut will be a Conservative. I think that's very fair. I reject any suggestion that we are being unfair or that we don't want to reach a compromise to this impasse that we're at right now. In fact, it's the opposite. We see it the other way.

We're playing semantics now, back and forth. I don't think it's fair to any of us here. I don't think it's fair to Parliament. I don't think it's fair to Canadians, who voted us in to represent them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First I want to react to Mr. Julian's comments, if I may, about the New Democratic Party representing all the ridings where there are linguistic minorities. They do represent some. Certainly they've done very well in northern Ontario, but I'm not sure that holds in New Brunswick. I'm sure it doesn't hold in eastern Ontario. Mr. Galipeau is proof of that. I'm proof of that.

I don't think it holds true in Manitoba either. St. Boniface is represented by

the government party. Let's be fair here, Julian.

They've done well in certain areas, but they don't represent all the ridings where there are linguistic minorities.

[An hon. member]

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

That's what I thought I heard, as well. If that's not what you said, I apologize.

I withdraw my comments, Mr. Chair.

But I would like to thank Mr. Harris for his remarks.

Mr. Menegakis, when you said at the end that we are playing games here--no, not playing games, but that it's semantics, you're right to a certain extent. He hit the nail right on the head. What's going on here is the government is trying to impose its will—I understand that—and not allow the third party to have a second time to speak. That's basically what we're facing here, and he called it.

I don't know why we're trying to do that. I really don't. Traditionally, in Canada the third party has always had the right to speak in every round. Check that out. If we're going to kill that principle here, you'll be setting a precedent that down the road other parties will come to rue.

I really think you should think very seriously about it.

I also want to commend Mr. Aubin for finding a solution that has the power to please everyone. I know that Mr. Julian has spoken to everyone, and I don't know whether it will be adopted or not.

Certain fundamental principles underpinning how committees operate—and by extension, how Parliament operates—are at play here. I would really like for us to reach an agreement. The committee has recently lived through two periods. During the first, the spirit of cooperation served Canada's linguistic duality. And we were able to produce a report. I was hoping we could get back to that report and refer the matter to the government to address the issues pertaining to immigration. We did an excellent job on that. And so, Mr. Menegakis, both sides can indeed work together cooperatively.

When committee members chose to work together cooperatively, by giving a little here and there, as Mr. Galipeau suggested, instead of refusing to budge at every turn, we were productive and able to serve our communities. But during periods when committee members refused to budge or make concessions, productivity stopped. The committee has seen all kinds of crises, with finger wagging on both sides.

At a certain point, the committee could no longer even function. And that did not serve anyone's interests. I was not on the committee then. I came back after that. I found it very encouraging to see the openness and respect being shown around the table. That atmosphere is crucial to our ability to function and be effective, because that is what will enable us to urge the government, regardless of the party in power, as well as provincial governments across the country, to respect federal-provincial agreements involving linguistic duality and transfer payments. A great many of those transfers from the Government of Canada to the provinces involve education, health, immigration and almost every other area.

If we cannot manage to work together effectively—and unfortunately, that seems to be the reality taking shape—if we have to spend all of our time bickering—and believe me, I can squabble with the best of them—it is not just the committee that will suffer. We are facing the possibility of having to convene in the summer. And I have no qualms there, ladies and gentlemen. You will find out just how beautiful Ottawa can be in the summer. I would be happy to have you here, as Mr. Galipeau would, I am sure. There are other ways to obstruct the workings of a committee, of the House, of Parliament. Unanimous consent is needed to green-light certain projects. There are a plethora of ways. I would hope that we can avoid going down that road and avoid confrontation. And yet, that seems to be what people want. When people are suppressed, they will react. That's basic human nature.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

Mr. Aubin, you have the floor.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

The decision we are getting ready to make this morning, I hope, may very well be our most important ever. We must be able to leave this room with a consensus in hand. If we want to talk numbers, we can take a different view and say that we have a broad consensus, given that two parties out of three already agree on a potentially acceptable amendment.

Beyond that, what I consider crucial is our ability to reach a unanimous agreement on this process, so that every witness who comes before us in the weeks ahead knows they are appearing before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, not a group of Liberal, NDP and Conservative representatives assigned to the official languages file. They should not have to tailor their remarks in order to please the government majority or side with the opposition in the spirit of partisan politics. I consider it extremely important that we at least be able to look as though we can work together.

I hope we can do more than just look the part, but in order to manage that, we must take the symbolic first step and come to a unanimous agreement on the order of questioners during our proceedings. As for the order I am proposing, clearly, the government side needs to give a little more, I realize. But this doesn't seem to be a crime of lèse-majesté. Over the next few minutes, I think we can agree on an order that respects all the basic principles we have been talking about for two weeks now, as well as this committee's tradition of giving even the third party the floor in every round. I don't think this goes against any of the principles previously established by committee members before me. The proposal incorporates all the principles that have been addressed in our discussions.

I appreciate this may be a sensitive matter for some; we all feel some level of discomfort with this solution. But since we have not been able to find a better compromise so far, this is the one we should go with, in my view. This compromise truly has the power to please all three parties.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Harris.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

To continue the theme that I think we have going on this side, we are trying to find balance. We're trying to accommodate as many of the different points of view as I think are reasonable while holding to parliamentary tradition and trying new things.

This certainly gives everybody an opportunity to speak. It maintains a balance in speaking times. It maintains a balance in that no party speaks twice in a row. It maintains a balance at the end. Should the time be cut short, it's true that two of the final three will be the governing party, but two of the final four will also be the opposition. That's balance.

Maybe later on, once we've dealt with things like this, we might decide that if we're running out of time, for balance we'd actually cut things short at those final four speakers rather than at the final three, just to make it fair. That's something we can look at down the road, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Again, we're looking at the way this is laid out. We're looking at 34 minutes for the governing party, 22 minutes for the official opposition, and 12 minutes for the third party. If you add the two opposition parties together, it's 34 minutes. That's a balance in speaking time between the governing party and the opposition parties, but it does reflect, by comparison, that the governing party has 12 minutes more than....Everything that the third party has, the government has over and above what the official opposition has in speaking time. That reflects the fact that there are six people sitting opposite.

We'd all certainly like to move on, but that's not going to happen unless there's at least one vote on the other side of the floor. We have a consensus on this side, so hopefully we won't be held back for much longer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.