Official Languages Committee on May 1st, 2007

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

I agree with the motion. I have no difficulty summoning representatives from Sport Canada to appear before the committee. However, this was not a decision made by Sport Canada, but by Hockey Canada. However, the motion states that it is a decision made by Hockey Canada and Sport Canada.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

What is your amendment?

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

It's to summon representatives of Sport Canada to explain Hockey Canada's decision to name Shane Doan.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Lemieux.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

It is alleged that Mr. Doan made some comments. This matter is now before the courts, and no decision has been made yet. So, if someone were to testify on behalf of Hockey Canada, that is probably what this person will say, namely, that the judge has not rendered his decision.

I'm afraid that we might find ourselves in a situation that is not clear. We may ask why this decision was made, but an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Alright.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That's all that I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. Rodriguez.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

The official's report we obtained a copy of clearly indicates what Mr. Doan said. It will be up to the judge to decide. I am not sure exactly what the process is, but the official's report is very clear as to the comments made by Mr. Doan. In my view, the allegations are so serious that they alone are reason enough to not appoint him captain. Had he made racist allegations or comments about anglophones, Jews, blacks, etc., I don't think he would have been named captain. There is no acceptable kind of discrimination. All forms of discrimination are unacceptable.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

If he is found guilty, you will have been right, but if he isn't, that will be difficult.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

I assure you that the linesman's report states that he made those comments.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

This case is before the courts. It is therefore hard to say whether he is guilty or not. But if he is found guilty, that changes everything.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Mr. D'Amours, you have the floor.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We are not asking that Mr. Doan appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages. The problem is between Mr. Doan and others.

Consider Mr. Chong's example. According to his amendment, we are asking those people to appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages so that they explain the reason why they made that controversial decision. The amendment refers to the controversy, not something that is before the court.

We are not asking him to appear. We are calling on representatives of Hockey Canada and Sport Canada to come before the committee and explain why they made such a decision. They must have known that by adding fuel to the fire they would only trigger more negative reactions. And that is exactly what has happened.

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

We therefore want to hear from Hockey Canada.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

That is why they should come and explain the reason for that decision. I think that is what Mr. Malo intended with his motion.

Isn't that so, Mr. Malo? Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I recommend we pass the motion. The case before the court and the questions we are raising here in Parliament are two different things. The representatives of Hockey Canada must appear before us to explain their decision. Such an appointment is a real affront. Giving either side the benefit of the doubt just won't do.

I recall that, during the sponsorship scandal, the Conservatives said that we had to send for everyone involved and question them, regardless of court cases and the work of the commission. And we did so. As parliamentarians, we have to assume our responsibilities. We have every right to send for those people.

If we do not ask representatives of Hockey Canada to appear because the case is before the court, that may suggest that whenever something unclear happens and a person is summoned before the court, appointments can be made without us being able to consider them for two or three years. That is not right. That is why I support the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you.

Mr. Nadeau, you may proceed.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, in light of Mr. Lemieux's remarks and given that this controversy is causing a stir in Quebec and Canada, how can this individual have been appointed captain? They should have felt slightly embarrassed and shown some restraint.

We therefore have to ask that the people responsible for the team come and explain the reasons that led them to make their decision, which is an affront to all Canadian francophones.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you.

Mr. Harvey, you have the floor.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I agree with the motion in principle. I have one single concern. As Pierre said, Hockey Canada representatives could simply tell us that the matter is before the court and that they cannot answer our questions. If the meeting were in camera, would we not be able to get some answers? In other words, information given by Hockey Canada could be used against Mr. Doan when he appears in court.

As well, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Until a decision is rendered, even if there are allegations, he is still innocent. That said, Hockey Canada was clearly not at the top of its game when it appointed Mr. Doan captain, I will grant you that. It would be good to understand what really happened.

I wonder whether they will be able to speak, given that the case is before the courts. If they say that it was a bad decision, could that not be used against Mr. Doan in court? That is not our objective. We have to establish whether it was appropriate to appoint that person captain of the Canadian team.

[The Chair, Conservative, Guy Lauzon]

Thank you.

Ms. Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the majority of my colleagues. If others wish, we could perhaps add that it is without prejudice to Mr. Doan. We definitely can ask Hockey Canada whether appointing someone against whom a lawsuit has been filed to represent all Canadians, including francophones and anglophones, shows a lack of sensitivity toward Canadian francophones.

I do not know whether Mr. Malo would agree, but we could add that this would be without prejudice to Mr. Doan. Even if the judge finds Mr. Doan innocent, there is, and was when Mr. Doan was appointed, a huge cloud hanging over his head. This shows a blatant lack of sensitivity by Hockey Canada.