Official Languages Committee on Oct. 17th, 2006

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I received the motion at the same time as everyone else, and I had a week to read it. In fact, I consulted the wonderful book that we all received, the Standing Orders. I checked section 108(2). I will point out to you that this motion is out of order pursuant to subsection (3)(f). The Standing Orders state that all committees are granted that power, with the exception of the ones set out in subsections (3)(a) and (3)(f). Subsection (3)(f) deals with our committee. We do not have those powers, as indicated in subsection (3)(f), which is the description of our mandate. It reads as follows:

(f) Official Languages shall include, among other matters, the review of and report on official languages policies and programs, including Reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, which shall be deemed permanently referred to the Committee immediately after they are laid upon the Table;

We have no other mandate beyond that. It is unfortunate. Four committees are in that situation. The motion, despite all of its qualities, is therefore out of order. If we were the Justice Committee or another standing committee, the motion would be in order, but subsection (3)(f) excludes that possibility.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to rule the motion out of order since it is not consistent with our mandate as described in subsection (3)(f).

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Ms. Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I would like to ask the clerk for her opinion. To my mind, these comments are entirely inconsistent with what is written here. In fact, considering everything regarding the application of the Official Languages Act is part of our prerogative.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Danielle Bélisle]

It is not up to me to interpret subsection (3)(f). In fact, it is the committee that, at the end of the day, will make the decision. I do, however, see that the committee's mandate includes, among other things, the review of an report on official language policies and programs. Anything involving official languages policies and programs is therefore included in the committee's mandate. In addition, there are the commissioner's annual reports. It does, indeed, say “including Reports of the Commissioner”. That is my interpretation, and it is up to the committee to decide if it agrees or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Before going back to Mr. Godin...

[The Clerk]

Mr. Paré could perhaps add something else.

[Jean-Rodrigue Paré]

Based on my understanding of the situation — it might perhaps be a good idea to have that checked by a legal expert or by the Speaker of the House's Office — the spirit of this distinction regarding the mandate stems from the fact that the Standing Committee on Official Languages is not linked to a specific department. The fact that it is not linked to a specific department does not mean that an issue affecting official languages cannot be dealt with; it means that we do not automatically have to consider specific departmental programs. For example, we are not required to examine a department's financial statements, etc. The committee is nevertheless free to consider issues that affect official languages programs directly or indirectly.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

May I respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

First, we will hear from Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This morning, I see that the Conservatives are trying to obtain through the back door what they cannot get through the front door.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Now wait a minute. I would like to raise a point of order.

That is not true, Mr. Godin.

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

Excuse me, I have the floor.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Godin, that is not true.

I have read the rules, and that is simply not true.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Just a second, Mr. Petit.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

By cutting funding to the Court Challenges Program, the government has just placed francophone minorities on the lowest rung of our country social ladder.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Please, Mr. Godin, we are debating the motion.

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

The motion deals with the Court Challenges Program, and that is exactly what I am talking about.

Mr. Chair, you were here when motions were put forward concerning the Dion plan, a $700 million program. We made recommendations to Parliament so that the government would establish a $700 million program.

This is not the first time that we have had to deal with such a situation. That is part of the broad mandate of this committee. And no one will muzzle us. As our clerk and our analyst have said, our mandate can cover all departments. We report on, give our interpretation of, and make recommendations to the government on all things concerning official languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like to point out to the committee that I am not using a back door approach. When I proceed, I do so directly. I believe that I am good natured enough to do things directly.

I relied on the documents submitted by Ms. Barbot. I would like to read subsection 108(2) of the Standing Orders and have it put on the record in the committee's minutes. The subsection reads:

(2) To the standing committees, except those set out in sections (3)(a), (3)(f), (3)(h) and (4) of this Standing Order, shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section 1 of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81...

No exception is made for our committee. I am not going in through the back door. I simply want to point that out. This is not my personal opinion, this is parliamentary procedure. We cannot do that, it is not part of our mandate. I did not say that the motion was good or bad; I do not even disagree with the substance of the motion. I am saying we do not have those powers.

If we really want to get to the bottom of this, we can have a debate right now. Mister the analyst—we will talk about it— such a motion falls under section 92 of the British North America Act, where it is stated that provincial courts may exclusively deal with what we call procedure. I can immediately table the section, if you wish.

I would like you to stop saying that I am using a back door approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Ms. Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

The motion is clearly not restrictive. If it were, the committee would lose its purpose. It is our mandate to study all that is done in government and to provide our advice.

We voted on Bill S-3. How can we now be told that a measure, which causes a significant part of this legislation to be inoperative, does not fall under our purview? That is completely inconsistent. I understand that the Conservatives have a habit of being inconsistent. Bill S-3 was adopted, and francophones outside Quebec are being denied the means to challenge the legislation.

Moreover, the prime minister said in the House of Commons that he was governing in good faith, and that people would not need to protest. However, no one is perfect. I am not presuming what people want, I am saying that Mr. Petit's claim is inoperative. If not, we should just pick up our marbles and go home, because there is nothing left for us to do on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We should not be so disingenuous about something that, after all, is well within our mandate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you.

Ms. Boucher.

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

No, I do not want the discussion on this motion to degenerate. We have read the same documents, but usually, we work as a group. I am sorry, but I at least respect others and I always will. What we asked for, we found in the document, which provides an explanation, it is now up to us to have a discussion without engaging into a political dispute and trying to throw stones.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

We are politicians, and we are here to do politics.

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

Yes, but throwing stones will not solve anything.