Official Languages Committee on May 31st, 2007

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

You are asking if you are right on this particular point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

The clerk has informed me that previous motions remain valid. For example, I refer to this committee's invitation to the Official Languages Commissioner and to the minister. This motion is still valid, therefore, the clerk can still call all the witnesses.

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

Very well, I just wanted to make sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We are talking about—

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Firstly, I wish to clarify that we are currently talking about Mr. Nadeau's motion about our work schedule for the next meetings.

I will give you the floor and then ask our clerk to read the proposal to us.

Mr. Godin, do you wish to raise a point of order?

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

It must be pointed out that this committee was not dissolved, but that the chair resigned. Nothing in the records show that this committee was dissolved. A new chair was elected, and we are continuing our meetings. We did not dissolve the committee: the same members sit on this committee, and we have not elected a new vice-chair, etc. There was an interruption following the resignation of our chair. This morning, we have elected a new chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I will now ask the clerk to read the proposal and then I will go through the list of speakers.

Mr. Truelove, will you read the proposal? Do you need help?

[The Clerk]

It's a bit tricky.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Nadeau moves that the committee holds the next four meetings on the subject of the Court Challenges Program and he also reiterates the previous motion to the effect that the Commissioner of Official languages meet with us as soon as possible. Is this right?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

It is rather long. It is practically an entire agenda. Perhaps you can submit something more concise.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

May I read it, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Yes, go ahead and read it. It is quite the grocery list you have there, Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, but as you know, we have been waiting for a long time. That said, it has been suggested that we hold four more meetings, or more if needed, on the Court Challenges Program; that we meet with the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Graham Fraser on June 7, at the latest; and that there be one meeting with the Société nationale de l'Acadie, the SNA, and the Société Radio-Canada, Atlantic region; that there be a meeting with Anglo-Quebec groups in the fall, and meetings on the Canada-community agreements with each one of the provinces and territories to see how these agreements can be improved.

In addition, my colleague has tabled a proposal to hear from witnesses on the Court Challenges Program. I will also be tabling the work that has already been done on this same subject.

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

I did not understand this proposal on the witnesses.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

It is a list of potential witnesses.

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

Did you table it yourself?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

I'm tabling it now. It is a list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You do not need to put the list of witnesses with—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

No, but I'll give it to you any way, Mr. Chairman. I will be most pleased to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

In order, the next speakers are Mr. Godin, Mr. D'Amours, Mr. Lemieux, Mr. Harvey, Mr. Boucher and Mr. Simard.

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

First, Mr. Chairman, I would have preferred having Mr. Harvey here to listen to what I have to say.

We did not travel across Canada to obtain information on the Court Challenges Program, but rather to meet with communities. Throughout the country, we heard complaints about the cancellation of the program. We decided to undertake a study on this matter because of its importance for the entire country.

Because of partisan politics we have missed six meetings, and seven if we count today's meeting. Had this not occurred, we would have concluded discussions on the Court Challenges Program, and we would have already produced our report, which would have been tabled in the House of Commons. Mr. Chairman, we have missed seven meetings.

I think we should stop talking about partisan politics, get down to work, and review the Court Challenges Program, table a report in the House of Commons, and set up an agenda.

This is a pity, but whether we like it or not, I am a member of Parliament elected by my fellow citizens and I am a member of the NDP.

Mr. Harvey represents the Conservative Party, Ms. Folco represents the Liberal Party, and Mr. Nadeau represents the Bloc Québécois. Whether we like it or not, we're all members of political parties. It is not necessary to constantly remind ourselves that there are partisan considerations. I am here to defend causes to the best of my abilities.

The Court Challenges Program is probably not as important for those who are part of a majority group, but it is extremely important for those who are part of minority communities. In fact, Prince Edward Island was able to open certain schools because of the Court Challenges Program.

Our committee must get down to work. The government may take whatever decision it wishes, but we have the responsibility to make choices, do our work, and make recommendations to the government. We will not let ourselves be swayed by rumours about what the government is supposed to be preparing, Mr. Chairman.

The government must do what it has to do. If the government wants a Court Challenges Program, it can restore one today. We decided to launch a study and make recommendations to the Government of Canada. If the Government of Canada wants to drag its feet and leave communities behind by abandoning the Court Challenges Program, it is doing a very good job.

Recently, a community in New Brunswick filed a lawsuit against the RCMP. It won the case, but the Government of Canada decided to appeal it. Today, the Court Challenges Program no longer exists to help the community pay for related legal costs. This is a very difficult situation for people.

We have to encourage the government to re-establish the Court Challenges Program as soon as possible. It will improve the situation of communities throughout Canada, whether they be anglophone communities in Quebec or francophones living in the rest of Canada.

I repeat, we are not wasting our time. According to the House calendar, we are to adjourn on June 22. If the government is truly interested in dealing with this problem, it should not rise. It should allow us to continue working. According to the calendar, working hours can be extended for two weeks. This means that we can work overtime. I think that everyone will be finished business on June 8. Personally, I do not want to adjourn on June 8, but on the 22^nd of June in order to finish our work. We have to respect the calendar, and June 22 is the date that is marked. We have quite a bit of work to do. We are not in school, we are not out on June 8. People expect us to do our work. The Court Challenges Program is one of the most important programs. If we cannot defend our rights, we shouldn't be here. We have just passed Bill S-3, and this new piece of legislation will probably be challenged. Will the government respect the new law on federal institutions? There may be challenges. That is probably why the government decided to cancel the Court Challenges Program. Perhaps the government foresees something we are unaware of.

We have work to do, and I have spoken long enough. Therefore, we should move ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

We will now go to Mr. D'Amours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To begin with, Mr. Chairman, I do not have any problem with the motion by my colleague, Richard Nadeau. However, I am not quite clear on why there are concerns about this issue. I'm not talking about the motion, but rather the discussion. Why is there concern over the committee's future business? We already agreed, and more than agreed—the witnesses were here on May 15—that we were going to discuss and study the cancellation of the Court Challenges Program.

The committee cancelled the meeting two minutes before it was to start, but the witnesses were here. If they were here, it was because the issue was on the agenda. On that point certainly, I think we should stop basically wasting our time and agree that it was on the agenda. There is no difficulty in proving it. The people were there and they were waiting to be able to speak to the committee members.

I too think that young people, schools and all that are important, but they are important if we can give people tools to be able to speak, write and hear French. If the Court Challenges Program no longer exists, that will cause a serious problem. It is all very well to talk about young people. As I have already said in other discussions, it is fine to talk about young people, but if we do not give them the tools they need starting from birth and going on from there, it becomes difficult to really help these people when they are adults. So let us start when they are young and in school.

We know that some communities across the country have been faced with problems and have had to go to court to defend themselves. That has happened in Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, the Northwest Territories and various other regions. In fact, you could name any province or territory. If these problems had not occurred, we might be able to say today that the Court Challenges Program was not necessary. But that is not the reality.

The reality is that there have been cutbacks everywhere, and the communities have had to defend themselves. They are not rich. They have had to defend themselves and in order to do that, they needed resources. In order to get those resources, they have practically had to get down on their knees and beg the federal government to help them through the Court Challenges Program. Thus, they were able to defend their rights in court.

The informal meeting by the members of the Advisory Committee on Official Languages with people indicated to us that the language aspect involved approximately a half million dollars. That is peanuts in the context of the federal budget. It is very unfair that there are people who thought that these communities were receiving huge amounts in order to defend themselves against governments. In reality, they were getting peanuts to help them defend their rights.

We will be voting on Mr. Nadeau's motion, but I hope that people have said what they had to say and we will do what we were supposed to do back on May 15 by moving ahead with our study of the Court Challenges Program.