Official Languages Committee on Nov. 13th, 2007

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe that the majority of the committee members, not necessarily all of them, would like us to invite the Official Languages Commissioner before us and to deal with the issue of funding for court challenges, so that we can finish the report. I would like you to check that.

I don't believe that Mr. Lemieux has understood the situation. He did not understand, during our national tour, that this was the first priority everywhere and that court challenges are an important issue.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind you that prior to your chairmanship, the previous chair decided to cancel a meeting against the committee's will and he had to go for a little walk outside. It now seems, and you'll excuse me, that the government representative wants to once again bury the issue and not move forward.

I believe that the majority of this committee's members want to finish this study. Mr. Lemieux is telling us that he does not want the entire study and all the testimony to be disclosed to the public at large. He does not want a report to be tabled in Parliament. We already came to a decision on that. I would like the committee members to be asked if they want to finish this report. Don't forget that the Court Challenges Program was cancelled by the Conservatives and that they are the ones who do not want to listen. They were the ones who abolished the Court Challenges Program, a program that resulted in schools on Prince Edward Island and in Nova Scotia, that was helpful to SOS Montfort, here in Ottawa, and that was helpful in Ontario and British Columbia. We have already had this discussion. If Mr. Lemieux is still arguing against this, then that means that the government's position is that it does not want to discuss the Court Challenges Program. If that is not the case, then let's move ahead, Mr. Chairman. If it is the case, then Mr. Lemieux should use the last five minutes to tell us that he does not want to move ahead with this.

I am proposing that the committee decide to ask the Minister of Official Languages to appear before this committee and that we report to the House of Commons based on the work that was done prior to this session.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you Mr. Godin.

On that topic, I promise to go through the motions that were adopted before Parliament was prorogued in order to bring them to the committee's attention.

I would just like to remind you that we have to leave this room by 11 o'clock because another committee is coming in.

Mr. Chong.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't think we should be studying the court challenges program again, or any of these other issues, frankly, for two reasons.

First, there will be plenty of opportunity to look at them in the upcoming session by calling the official languages commissioner when he makes his determination as to what his recommendation is in response to the cancellation of the court challenges program, so there will be an opportunity for the committee to call him as a witness for one meeting.

I don't think we should spend the entire committee's business for the next three or four months or beyond studying one issue that has really been studied to death, and that applies to these other issues that have been discussed as potential study topics. More importantly, I think all these issues that the opposition is proposing are frankly symptomatic and not foundational to bilingualism in Canada. If we really want to be useful as a committee, I propose that we study the entrance requirements for Canadian universities with respect to the knowledge of French.

It used to be the case in Ontario, for example, that the University of Toronto required French as essential to be accepted into university. They cancelled that requirement a number of years ago. As a result, you no longer need to know French coming out of high school in order to be accepted into university. This is something the committee could study. We could call the university presidents into committee here to study this; if the study comes out and recommends that universities make this change to the program, and that change happens, it would have a far more profound impact on bilingualism and on francophones in this country than would studying these issues that are frankly symptomatic and not foundational, many of which have been studied to death in the previous session of Parliament.

Third, there will be plenty of opportunity for us to designate special meetings of this committee and to call the official languages commissioner to highlight these issues that the opposition is concerned about, but I don't think we should spend months and months studying things that frankly are symptomatic and not foundational to what this committee is all about.

I propose that we undertake a study of the role that post-secondary institutions play in the promotion of bilingualism in this country. I think that would be a far more effective use of the committee's time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Chong.

I only have Mr. Lemieux left on my speaker list.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

I would like to come back to my motion. We have just discussed several suggestions. What Mr. Godin is trying to do is table a motion. We just discussed Mr. Godin's two priorities, Mr. Nadeau's four priorities, Mr. Bélanger's two priorities and my two priorities. Thanks to Mr. Chong, one of my suggestions is being supported. How will we make up our minds?

Mr. Godin would like one of his ideas to be accepted on the basis of his convictions. Listen, do we have unanimity or not? We would like to move ahead, have a vote or something. Where's the motion? We can't work in this fashion.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is no unanimity, of that I am sure, for your motion. Let's forget it.

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

How will we choose our topics? We can't do it based on passion and conviction or on who speaks the loudest. I would like my idea to be taken into consideration. I'm saying that there is a process that must be followed. I have seen what happens in other committees. We haven't discussed a steering committee but we could. I suggested an idea but it hasn't been discussed.

If we have to make a decision now, then a motion has to be tabled. Yes, we have heard the preferences and the suggestions of the other committee members but a decision must be made and that decision does not only depend on us. We need to move ahead and consult the committee members.

I would therefore like to table my motion, that reads as follows:

That the Official Languages Committee study the role of post-secondary institutions in promoting linguistic duality and teaching official languages.

I am tabling this motion for all the reasons I already gave. I have a copy with me here.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Is the motion in order, yes or no?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

As I stated earlier, I wanted to hear all possible topics of discussion. I believe that all committee members had an opportunity to raise the issues they were interested in considering.

I would like to point out to Mr. Lemieux that if he still wishes to table his motion we have very little time left to discuss it, unless we vote on it very quickly. On the other hand, the comments that were made indicate that there's a will to have the official languages commissioner appear before us.

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

I have an objection. We can't pick just one idea out of the 10 that were raised today. We have to follow a process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Lemieux, I am going to conclude.

I see that we still need some time in order to discuss Mr. Lemieux's motion. I would suggest to that we take up the committee's agenda on Thursday. I would suggest that you postpone your motion until the next meeting. We could start our meeting with our daily business. If it is the wish of the committee, I can ask the official languages commissioner if he is available in order to present his report. However, I do not want to act against the wishes of the committee members.

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

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Conservatives once again have wasted time that could have been spent on the Court Challenges Program. That's what he wanted to do. It is 11 o'clock and we have lost that time. The clerk could have asked the minister to appear next Tuesday. We could have then started our discussion on the court challenges program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, you yourself provoked...

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

We're still discussing. What Mr. Lemieux wants to do is to bury the issue of the Court Challenges Program.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Lemieux, do you want to table your motion now?

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

Yes, I would like to table my motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We will not be able to debate it right away.

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

If the motion is on the committee's discussion, then we do not need 48 hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I propose that we receive the motion and that we debate it at the next meeting.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question. I don't have a problem with us receiving the motion. That is called a notice of motion. We will deal with it next Thursday. However, you stated that you would invite the official languages commissioner to Thursday's meeting. Is that correct?

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

Point of order. What have we decided? We didn't vote. The committee has not made a decision on this. We just discussed committee procedures. That was our duty. Then we talked about how we would proceed with motions. You said no. I agreed and I said that we could talk about the steering committee. Nothing was discussed. Now you want to decide on this yourself without even voting. Why would your idea be any better than mine?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Lemieux, if you would like to table your motion I am willing to receive it. If the committee is ready, I am ready to proceed with the vote on your motion.

[A Voice]

Fine, let's do it.

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

I'm sorry but I did not understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I am willing to receive your motion and to proceed with the vote.