Evidence of meeting #54 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chairman.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Do the committee members agree on dealing with this motion before we move on to another item?
Mr. Godin.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman. I think I said enough at the beginning of the meeting. As I stated, I have been a member of the Official Languages Committee since 1998. I hold official languages close to my heart. I would not be sitting on this committee if that were not true. I live in a community where two groups of people live side by side: anglophones and francophones. We have worked very hard over the years. New Brunswick is the only officially bilingual province in Canada.
Over the past 25 years, the Official Languages Committee was never able to go and visit people in their communities. I am one of those individuals who insisted that we do so, not because I wanted to travel, because I can travel as much as I wish, but so that the committee could go into communities to see what was happening in schools, day cares and health establishments. You were one of those who said that you did not see how we could announce to our constituents that we were going to be spending money for official languages. You can't deny this: it can be checked in the minutes. We had to insist on this. We have now reached the point where the government has abolished the Court Challenges Program.
If there are French-language schools in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Ontario, it is thanks to that program. The people from Collège Boréal were proud to tell us about their challenges before the Court and the progress they made as a result. We were told the same in British Columbia. I could also talk about French-language health services throughout Canada. During our trip, there was not one place where we were not told about the harm the cancellation of this program would cause. The government said itself in the House of Commons that it would not spend money on groups that challenge its position. Imagine that!
You say that as chairman you acted of your own accord and not according to government orders. I doubt that, given what the Conservative Party whip is doing. The government publicly stated that it supports your position. You showed a lack of respect towards francophone communities and this committee. As Ms. Folco stated earlier, you did not have the courage to call us and yet you provided your reasons to the CBC' s Don Newman. That is when I learned your true reasons for cancelling this committee meeting. We can't work this way. We can't trust a chairman if he goes behind our backs this way.
I also do not believe that you contacted Pablo Rodriguez, the Vice-Chair of this committee. I know for a fact that you did not contact me. I am also a vice-chair, and yet you did not warn me that you were going to be cancelling the meeting. You contacted no one. You acted of your own accord, as you say, and by your own authority. It happens that this is not the kind of authority we want to give you, that is to be able to unilaterally cancel such an important meeting.
I stated the reasons for which a chair can cancel a meeting. Perhaps you could give me others. Those that I mentioned were quite simple, for example, when witnesses do not show up because they missed their flight. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on which I sit, has established rules for committees, but there was never any question of allowing a person to unilaterally decide to put an end to meetings on a particular topic because of the direction of a committee was taking.
We could never have imagined that a chairman would dare to do such a thing. And who's paying the price today? Minority communities. They are the ones who wanted to come here to defend themselves and to make suggestions to us so that we could submit them to the government. That is our right, in a democracy. We have a Parliament, and we have ministers who face Question Period between 2 o'clock and 3 c'clock in the afternoon.
Parliamentary committees are important. Under the Official Languages Act, there must be a Standing Committee on Official Languages that tables reports to Parliament and considers official languages legislation.
I therefore have no other choice but to request that you resign. I am asking you to step down because you have lost the confidence of this committee.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Obviously, I [Editor's note: technical problems]. I would like to add the following. As members of Parliament, we all travel all over the world. No matter what party you represent, people all around the world tell us how much they respect Canada because of its highly developed democracy. There is no doubt that Canada is one of the two or three most democratic countries in the world. And democracy is measured, first and foremost, by the level of democracy within a country's Parliament.
I have sat on and chaired other committees. For example, when we debated employment equity, we held that Parliament should be a model for other Canadian institutions, because, as the elected representatives of the Canadian public, Parliament is our voice. Not only is Canada a model for other less democratic countries—a matter we have discussed at length—but Parliament must also be a model for Canada. Since I began sitting on this committee, I have noticed that our progress has slowed. Take, for example, the filibuster that tied up an entire meeting. I apologize for having to use an English word—in fact, it is an American word—but I do not know the French word. That filibuster prevented us from voting on an item and making swifter progress in our discussions. That is the sort of behaviour that has slowed down—and now completely paralyzed—the work of this committee.
Obviously, some people will try to say that this is nothing but a tempest in a teapot, that it is unimportant, and that the members of the committee are getting unnecessarily worked up about what the chairman did. I however do not think that this is a tempest in a teapot. Our behaviour must always be beyond reproach. As members elected by the Canadian public, we must show respect for Canadians and carry out the work they have asked us to do.
Mr. Chairman, to my mind, by cancelling the meeting without notice and then cancelling a second meeting without explanation, you failed to live up to this responsibility. I wonder if we would even have had a meeting this morning if I had not tabled my motion. The reason I ask is that two meetings have already been cancelled without any explanation.
As members of Parliament, we have responsibilities towards the Canadian public—
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
I would like to react to Ms. Folco's allegations. If I am not mistaken, you called the meeting this morning. I therefore do not think that it was—
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I never said otherwise, Mr. Chairman.
I was imagining a hypothetical scenario, I did not say that it was a fact. I simply said that it was a possible scenario. At any rate, you received my motion well before the meeting was called. We will never know what would have happened, Mr. Harvey; but, at any rate, it is only a minor detail.
As my colleagues have said, what is important here is the lack of respect and the damage to our image in the eyes of Canadians. That is an important aspect.
Thank you.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Brian Murphy Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
By way of introduction, allow me to say that I have a great deal of respect for you, both as an individual and as a member of Parliament. I know that you work hard. I know that you have Canada's interest at heart and that you believe in a bilingual country. It is therefore with a heavy heart that I support this motion, but I have no choice but to do so.
This motion is not condemning you, Mr. Chairman, but your government's policy on official languages. The government no longer respects the Official Languages Act. It is this committee's responsibility to ensure that the Act is respected. This is very important to me, because I am an anglophone from New Brunswick, an officially bilingual province. When I was mayor of Moncton, the city was officially declared bilingual. That was achieved thanks to the work of this committee and thanks to the implementation of the Official Languages Act.
It is not your fault that this has happened; it is the fault of the government.
I'd like to add that coming as an anglophone to this committee and being accepted by you personally, and everyone here, I feel very welcome. I think the committee was working quite well when we went out west and so on.
But coming from a bilingual province and being an anglophone, coming from a bilingual city and being an anglophone, and seeing the harmony that exists because of this law and the work of committees like this, it seems a terrible shame that the government doesn't realize that this committee must keep working. Notwithstanding the allegations of politics, this committee must keep working. So I must support the motion. This committee must continue to work, and the shot over the bow for the government is that if you don't continue with the program and the aims of this law and this committee, there will be serious political consequences.
So reluctantly, Mr. Chairman, I am supporting this motion, and I do not intend it to be directed personally towards you. You're carrying the brunt of dismay for your party today, so I feel sorry for you, but I must vote for this motion.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to begin by saying that we will be supporting the motion. It was not an easy decision, but out of respect for this committee and out of respect for democracy—an ideal that is of paramount importance—we have no choice. Elected representatives are given a voice that must be used to advance the society in which we all live. The committees of the House of Commons are essential fora for exercising this responsibility. Preventing us from exercising our right to speak by cancelling Tuesday's meeting and by failing to schedule a meeting on Thursday is an abuse of power.
Mr. Chairman, there is another important point that must be understood. When we were in the House of Commons for Question Period on Tuesday, I sent you a memo asking you why you had cancelled the meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. You replied that the committee was becoming too partisan, and that the Court Challenges Program was before the courts and was also being studied by the Official Languages Commissioner. By way of conclusion, you said that we would invite witnesses at a later date, when all of these questions had been resolved.
Mr. Chairman, you felt that the committee was too partisan. The Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are part of the Canadian political landscape. There are some 15 political parties in Canada, and 4 of them have managed to get members elected. Furthermore, I would remind you that during in-camera work completed in the course of our recent trip, we attempted to produce a report in keeping with the parliamentary program.
A meeting on the Court Challenges Program was scheduled and, suddenly, you too decided to be partisan and cancel the meeting because your political party disagrees with the opposition's position on this subject. You are accusing others of what you are doing yourself—behaving in a partisan manner.
Other arguments have been advanced: the matter is before the courts; the Official Languages Commissioner is studying the program; and French and English language communities in minority settings in Quebec and Canada want to see the program reinstated. However, none of these in any way preclude the committee from studying the matter, especially since it was part of our program. It did not just appear out of nowhere.
When we visited all of Canada's French-language communities in a minority setting last fall, people told us that the program was essential. Logically, we therefore decided to put the issue on our work schedule, so that we could study it with the appropriate witnesses.
Your arguments in defence of your decision to cancel the meeting hold no water. The behaviour of the current Conservative government is indicative either of ignorance—which I do not believe to be the case—or of a lack of respect for members of minority communities, in particular French speakers—which I find all too easy to believe.
On September 25, 2006, the federal government decided to abolish the Court Challenges Program, as the Mulroney government had done before it—you will note that both the Mulroney and Harper governments were Conservative governments. The decision was made without any consideration for the communities' request to maintain the program. The Court Challenges Program has been used to help both the communities and society at large flourish by ensuring that their most fundamental rights are respected. In other words, the program ensured that people were able to conduct their lives in the official language of their choice at all times: be it in French outside Quebec, in English in Quebec or indeed in either language anywhere in the country.
The Court Challenges Program was also extremely useful in the struggle for schools. I am disappointed to see that some members from the region are not as tuned into the matter as they ought to be. The Montfort Hospital was a recent battle; it did not take place centuries ago. The program had to be used in the case of the Franco-Ontarian, the Franco-Saskatchewanian and the Acadian schools that were mentioned earlier, because the provincial governments and the school boards were not respecting the Constitution.
The current government told us that it was going to respect the Constitution. However, they did not stop to think that the federal government is not the only player involved here; the provincial governments have also failed to respect minority rights, even though these are rights enshrined in the Charter.
Allow me to continue. The government appointed an ombudsman for victims of crime who does not speak French. It also recently appointed a new Chairman of the National Capital Commission, who told us that, at the age of 62, he was going to start learning French out of respect for the people around him. And this, in a so-called bilingual region, recognized as such by the Canadian federal government. The failure to choose somebody able to communicate in French constitutes another affront to francophones. It was your government that made that choice.
Next we have the program for the Canadian armed forces. The government changed the entire program, not to ensure a greater respect for the Official Languages Act, by which the Department of National Defence should continue to be bound, but for other reasons. DND is not part of an independent State within the nation State, and should therefore implement and uphold mechanisms to resolve the problem that has plagued francophones in the Canadian Forces since the Official Languages Act was adopted some 39 or 40 years ago.
Given the wider context, the decision to cancel the meeting is, to my mind, indicative of a culture of disrespect for Canadian citizens, who told us that this matter required our attention. It is through debate that greater understanding is achieved. You prevented us from having this debate and from exercising one of the fundamental rights of a democracy—the right to speak and the right to be heard—thus preventing us from finding solutions to the important problem of ensuring the respect of all Canadians, whether they live in Quebec, in New Brunswick, or elsewhere in the country. We have legislation to ensure that official language minority communities are respected. The Court Challenges Program has proved to be a useful tool in many areas for French-language communities in a minority setting.
The reasons you cited earlier in no way justify your decision to prevent us from exercising this right, and you do not deserve to be the chair of this committee.
May 15th, 2007 / 9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I understand that the members of the opposition are upset, but I think that they are overreacting.
And to listen to them, you would think we had accomplished no work at all this past year, and yet look what we have accomplished. For the first time in 26 years, we travelled as a committee. We put together a report under your leadership, an excellent report that's been tabled in the House, and we've received compliments. I myself have received compliments on that report from people in my constituency, from more than one source.
I've lost count of the number of meetings we've had, the number of witnesses we've had appear before us.
There have been many. The committee wanted to meet the minister, and she appeared before the committee. We were even able to meet with two ministers at the same time, they were both here. We have heard from the Commissioner of Official Languages and witnesses from all around the country. We have done, and we continue to do, a lot of good work. We are here working to support the well-being of official language communities in minority settings.
The Court Challenges Program is a complex issue. We heard testimony on it during our pan-Canadian fact-finding mission. However, last week's meeting was scheduled to take place before the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his preliminary report. Furthermore, the Court Challenges Program is before the courts. The situation is complex.
Mr. Chair, you acted within your mandate. You had to use your judgment. It's not a question of overstepping your bounds; you acted within your mandate. I understand that the opposition is upset; that's fine, but he acted within his mandate.
Monsieur Godin is the whip of his party. I wonder if he's ever had to make a leadership decision that his fellow MPs were not happy with. I wonder if they ranted and raved and asked him to resign because they didn't agree with his decision. Even though he may have acted within the bounds of his responsibilities, did they go on and on?
You have my confidence. Under your leadership we've accomplished a lot of work. What I hear today is a lot of exaggeration. One thing I want to make clear is that by voting against you, Mr. Chair, the committee will not exist. It will cease to exist, so the opposition members, in saying that they want to serve our official language communities, are in fact dissolving the committee. Ask me—
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I do not understand why my Conservative colleague, Mr. Lemieux, is saying that if we vote against the chair, the committee will cease to exist. That is not the case; the rules of the House provide for the election of a new chairman. I fail to understand my colleague's point.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Exactly. The committee will cease to exist. The vice-chairs will no longer be the vice-chairs after the—
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
A point of order, please, Mr. Chairman.
I understand that this committee, in its current form under your chairmanship, will not continue. However, the rules of the House provide for an election, which means that work can go on. That is what we want; we want the work to go on.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you for your contribution to the debate, but it was not a point of order, because I was right. If the chairman steps down, this committee, in its present form, will cease to exist. We would have to strike a new committee. The opposition would be responsible for this state of affairs.
In conclusion, I would like to underscore that we have done a lot of good work. My colleagues on the other side are entitled to be angry but, Mr. Chairman, your actions were in keeping with your mandate. Personally, I think we should continue our work in our present format.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I will be very brief.
There has been a lot of talk about respect this morning. As far as I know, the right to hold in-camera meetings is a parliamentary privilege. However, information discussed in camera has been brought up publicly by Ms. Folco, the member for Laval.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
A point of order, Mr. Chairman: we are debating the motion at the moment, a motion that was tabled by my colleague.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
That is not a point of order. I am going to continue.
People keep talking about respect. I have always shown respect for all members of this committee. We have always worked hard to promote linguistic duality and defend linguistic minorities. A lot of information that was shared in an in-camera meeting has been disclosed in statements under Standing Order 31 and in press releases. That is indicative of a lack of respect for the parliamentarians on this committee. I understand that you are angry, but respect works both ways.
You have my full support, Mr. Lauzon, because you have always shown yourself to be a consummate professional. We produced a report, and everybody worked shoulder to shoulder. You have my full support.
Thank you.