Evidence of meeting #11 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chairman.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, if the bill said that the French language is the official language of Quebec...
1 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
1 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I do not need members of this committee to give me a boost. This is wrong. I am asking the witness questions, and everybody wants to get involved. I would like to be able to ask my questions myself. I think I am old enough to do so.
So this is already the case.
Under Quebec legislation, for a person living in Quebec, and we are not talking about private companies that fall under federal jurisdiction—does Bill 101 not...
1 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
If I were an anglophone living in Quebec, you are telling me that I could request to speak in French only.
1 p.m.
NDP
1 p.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
What we are talking about are language rights in connection with collective and individual rights. The employer has the obligation to allow you to work in French. This obligation is spelled out in Bill 101.
1 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Does the employer have the obligation to allow me to work in English?
1 p.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
The employer cannot force you to speak French and cannot fire you because you do not speak French. This is already provided for.
Mr. Chairman, once again, we are getting down to the crux of the debate. This is precisely the debate that I wanted to have to enlighten all members of the House and convey information on Quebec's linguistic reality, and talk about legislation that protects and promotes the French language. I want everyone to be clear on why we need these laws. I want everyone to understand why 92% of workers are already protected by such provisions and that the exception—the remaining 8%—are protected by other provisions.
1 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
The idea of holding a debate in the House causes few problems for me. Whether or not to vote on it is an entirely different issue.
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
That is another issue. It has nothing to do with the nation of Quebec; perhaps it concerns me, Yvon Godin, a mere Acadian who comes from some little corner outside Quebec. Perhaps this may be prejudicial to all francophones in this country, like those living in Alberta, or British Columbia.
Our cousins in Quebec must support us in this respect. I want all Canadians to agree on this, when it comes to linguistic matters, especially at work, concerning provincial and federal jurisdiction. We have always heard the Bloc Québécois defend itself by saying that this is a matter under Quebec jurisdiction; but this time it concerns federal jurisdiction.
1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
That is exactly why the federal government must legislate on these provisions.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Thank you.
Colleagues, we have about 20 to 25 minutes left in the meeting. We don't have any more questioners on my list. Are there any other questions of our colleagues to witnesses?
Do you have one more, Mr. Godin?
1:05 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
It's not a question, Chair.
I believe we need to have more information from those who are knowledgeable about the Constitution.
With respect to the debate, I do not want to hide behind the Constitution, not at all. I am not against having a debate in the House of Commons so we can make our arguments and put the question to a vote. We will live with the consequences. I have no intention of hiding behind the Constitution, it is not about that.
In the interest of enlightening the committee, I suggest that we invite witnesses to delve further into this question.
1:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Goodyear
Let me hear some other comments.
It's my thinking right now that if we vote this through, that's when you're going to get your debate in the House. The question is whether we're voting on the report or not, but that's where I think we are.
Monsieur Guimond, I saw your hand next, and then Madame Robillard.
1:05 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Mr. Chairman, your last comment is very relevant.
Firstly, with all due respect to Mr. Godin, I need to make the following remark. He says that he wants more information and that he is ready to have a debate. The best way of having a debate is to make the bill votable so that the House of Commons will set aside two hours of debate on this subject, followed by a vote. That is the best way. The best way to avoid debate is to kill the bill right away.
In terms of calling experts before us, I would like to point out to members that we are governed by the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The Standing Orders make up our bedtime reading, they help us manage our work. Everything we do in committee and in the House emanates from the Standing Orders. I am sorry, but Standing Order 92(2) reads “Within five sitting days of the deposit of the report [...], the sponsor of an item that is the object of the report shall have the opportunity to appear [...] and appeal the ruling. The last part is my own addition.
If the committee made its decision, within the five days, then Ms. Picard, the witness, has appeared before us.
Mr. Godin is suggesting that we hear from a battery of experts to tell us whether or not this bill is votable. I am sorry, with all due respect to Mr. Godin, a member I greatly appreciate, but he is misinterpreting the Standing Orders. This is not provided for in the Standing Orders. We are here to produce results and make a decision.
Is Ms. Picard's bill votable or not? That is the only decision we have to make today.