Evidence of meeting #55 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 meeting.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you, Mr. D'Amours.
I will now give the floor to Mr. Lemieux.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you very much.
I want to refer to some of the comments Monsieur Godin was making. I'm a little disappointed in the position he took, because I think he misunderstood Monsieur Harvey.
I think that Mr. Harvey was saying that we need to find a balance. The committee would like to work on a number of issues. You have raised important points, but everything is polarized, unfortunately. Our colleague has been wrongly interpreted, so people take a position and think that the two positions are far apart, when he is actually talking about striking a balance.
I think that Mr. Harvey is right. We can talk about the Court Challenges Program, but there are other things as well. I think that he really meant that if we had four meetings, we could also hear from the Commissioner of Official Languages and the minister.
In my riding, young people and culture are really important. We have talked about that. We have had major discussions about future business and we have talked about youth and culture. That is important as well, and we need to find a balance.
I would like us to work together, not in a polarized way, as we are right now. Yes, we would like to have the commissioner and the minister come before the committee, and we can start our work on the Court Challenges Program.
Mr. Harvey also raised a good point. It is true that we have travelled across Canada. We met with a lot of minority official language communities and spoke with many organizations. The Court Challenges Program came into the discussion every time because you asked the question when the organizations did not mention it. We talked about it at length when we were preparing our last report. I think it is an important issue, but there are other things to work on. We need to find a balance, and I think that four weeks is a bit too long.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
I would like you to finish your sentence; I did not want to interrupt you.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Yes, I have a point of order. I would like to ask the clerk, through you, Mr. Chairman, if we need another vote, given that the work plan had already been agreed to. We had already voted to have the Court Challenges Program as the next item on the agenda. The committee continued to exist, as you said yourself, even if it was unable to meet because there was no chairman. My question is for the clerk, regarding the fact that a decision was already made on this.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
One moment, please.
Ms. Folco, as I said earlier, the committee is carrying on its work from the last meeting. This morning, Mr. Nadeau introduced a motion, which is under discussion now. I believe that it goes in the direction that you are suggesting, but also [Editor's note: technical difficulties]. I can read it, if you like.
In order to clarify things, there are seven people on the speaker's list. After that, I would be interested in knowing the committee's position on the recommendation. According to my list and in this order, the speakers are Mr. Harvey, Ms. Boucher, Mr. Simard, Mr. Nadeau, Mr. Godin and, finally, Ms. Folco. I would propose that the committee hear from these people. I think that it is only reasonable. Then I think it would be useful to see what the committee's position is on the recommendation.
I will now go to Mr. Lemieux.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
With respect to Mr. Nadeau's motion, I would like to say that this is not really the way we work in establishing our work plan. We normally hold an in-camera meeting. We do not start with a detailed motion about what the committee is going to do.
I would like to see us provide suggestions today and then discuss them. However, I would like us to hold a private meeting in order to decide on our future business. That is how we used to work, and it worked well. We do not need to change that process today.
I find the motion a bit problematic. There may be discussions on other issues, I do not know. When a motion is too detailed, like this one by Mr. Nadeau, it becomes too restrictive. If we pass it, it becomes difficult to change it and we need to undertake a new process. This is not how we usually work.
On the point brought up by Ms. Folco, we did talk about adopting... I don't know what words were used at those meetings. It was not a committee—
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I am against that kind of meeting. We have a standing committee and we work in a parliamentary context. Minutes are prepared of our meetings. I find that quite irregular. I'm against meetings being held outside Parliament, outside the process, outside all the usual parameters. I was not there. This is too irregular for me, this—
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
It was an advisory committee of the opposition parties.
9:45 a.m.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
This is my point. It was only an advisory committee. It has nothing to do with anything.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Mr. Nadeau, that is not a point of order. It is a point of discussion.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Wait a minute.
I think that this is a bad precedent. If committee members start to bring in minutes from other meetings held who knows where and who knows when and they are considered legitimate, I wonder where this will lead. It could happen in any given situation.
I find that highly irregular. I would encourage my colleagues to not support that idea. When the committee stopped functioning there was no committee work being done. These meetings took place outside of Parliament, and it was not a permanent standing committee. There was no official parliamentary record kept of those discussions.
I don't think it's appropriate that we should somehow give legitimacy to what happened there by bringing those minutes--I don't want to call them a record—into the committee and having the committee adopt them, or whatever we want to call that.
I wanted to comment on that because it was a point brought up by Madame Folco. I think it's highly irregular. It sets a dangerous precedent, a negative precedent, and we should move forward.
We would like to move forward on setting our agenda or identifying important issues. If we hold more meetings on the Court Challenges Program, it will not be necessary, given that we are going to restart our work as a committee. It is important to understand that.
Thank you very much.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.
I would simply remind members that if documents are to be provided to committee members, it must be done through the clerk in both official languages.
We will now go to Mr. Harvey.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
At the beginning of the meeting, I asked what there was to add on the Court Challenges Program. I asked that question in all honesty, but not a single word has been said on that. I would also like to remind you that in our report on our Canada-wide consultations, there were 37 or 38 recommendations. So we set 37 or 38 priorities. The Court Challenges Program was one of them. That means that there are at least 36 other issues that should be priorities.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Moreover, if we are talking about making a recommendation or a proposal about the agenda, I would like us not to make any commitment for the next session. There could even be another meeting. The vice-chairs and the chair could come up with an agenda in September. I do not really agree with the idea of our setting an agenda right now, since we do not know what will be proposed by the government, among other things, and we might commit to holding discussions or dealing with issues without knowing what the priorities will be in September.
It would be fine to come up with a work plan until the end of the session, but I do not think that we should go further than that. We could give priority to these issues but not assign particular issues to particular meeting dates. In closing, I would like to mention to Mr. Godin that the House of Commons calendar has dates in green, yellow and orange. The green dates end on June 8.
