Evidence of meeting #57 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 commissioner.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
It's no longer a notice of motion, Mr. Chairman. It's now a motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
As agreed at the last meeting, we will therefore now discuss Ms. Folco's motion.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't repeat myself. Everyone has had a chance to read the motion in both official languages. So, if possible, I would like the debate to be reasonably short. I would like this motion to be official and to be sent to the minister concerned. In addition, today is Thursday.
I have nothing further to add to what I said on Tuesday. Thank you.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Ms. Folco, I read your motion. I believe that Ms. Verner has repeated often enough that Ms. Oda has nothing to do with this. Minister Verner handles everything alone: horizontal issues and all the rest.
Unlike the Minister of Canadian Heritage under your government, whose mandate was to coordinate the implementation of the advancement of linguistic duality, Ms. Oda no longer has that mandate; Ms. Verner is entirely responsible for it.
Two motions to invite Minister Verner have already been put before us. We all voted for Ms. Verner to appear. Since Ms. Oda no longer has the mandate to coordinate implementation of the advancement of linguistic duality, we in the government will abstain from voting, for the good and simple reason that it is not up to her to come and defend that implementation, but rather Minister Josée Verner.
We have already had two motions to summon Minister Verner, the motion of May 1 of this year and another motion introduced on May 31.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
In my opinion, the amendment would simply be to delete Ms. Oda's name, because she no longer has a mandate to coordinate implementation of the advancement of linguistic duality. It is Ms. Verner, Minister for La Francophonie and Official Languages, who has that mandate.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
An amendment has been moved. The speakers have a right to speak.
Go ahead, Mr. Godin.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to deleting Ms. Oda's name. However, in view of the time we have left, I would like us not to waste time hearing from her, because an invitation has already been made, as Ms. Boucher said. Instead we should ask a question and ask for a written answer. Even if she comes here, we will ask her questions and she will answer. The motion states, and I quote:
[...] to appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages before the House rises in June 2007. The purpose would be to review, and report on what strategic plans are now being designed [...]
If time does not permit, we should ask the minister to respond by letter to the Chair of the Committee.
We have to finish the debate on the Court Challenges Program. Between now and June 22, there's only that. I think they would have more of a chance of really answering Ms. Folco's question. We want an answer. They know what you're talking about. You asked the question in the House; you did everything in your power. The minister has to respond and indicate whether they will continue the action plan. I have no objection to that. I think we should do it and request it in writing.
Conservative
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Chairman, first I intend to leave Ms. Oda's name in the text of this motion.
Second, as regards dates, I wonder whether the clerk has obtained an answer from Minister Verner to the request we sent her on May 1.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
The clerk informs me that he contacted Ms. Verner's office and has not obtained an answer to date.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Graeme Truelove
I was told they would consult the schedule and calendar. They will be calling me back to give me possible options, but I have not yet had any news.
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
Mr. Chairman, it is now June 7, and this motion was introduced on May 1, as Ms. Boucher said. It's now been more than a month.
The intent of this motion was not to hear from one or two ministers once again. I would like this motion to be adopted as is. When Ms. Verner informs the Chair of the date of her appearance before the committee, we can then add to the questions that the committee will ask her those relating to the action plan. I have no objection to that being done in a single meeting. I want to be sure that there are questions concerning the action plan at the meeting at which Ms. Verner testifies. The Court Challenges Program is fundamentally important, but, after that, there will be the entire issue of the action plan. By means of this motion, I wanted to inform the minister or ministers that we are pursuing this plan. It's an open secret. I maintain my motion as it stands, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
The debate concerns the amendment the purpose of which is to delete—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
—the name of Minister Verner and to summon Minister Oda.
Now I turn the floor over to—
Liberal
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval—Les Îles, QC
No, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of the amendment is to delete the name of Minister Oda and to have only Ms. Verner appear.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Yes, that's the amendment that is moved. We will now hear comments on the subject.
Mr. Chong now has the floor.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Folco, do you agree on the amendment?
