Official Languages Committee on Nov. 13th, 2007

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

I am proposing an amendment, that on the third round, we eliminate the NDP question to ensure that each member has an opportunity to participate in the committee's work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Lemieux moved an amendment.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I don't know if people are trying to punish me because I had called for the removal of the former chair, who was a member of the Conservative Party. My reasoning is as follows. There are four political parties. The Standing Committee on Official Languages — Mr. Bélanger knows this because he has been a past chair — is a committee which allows members from each political party to speak. We have operated this way for years. In the past, when a member from another party wanted to ask a question but feared that he would not be able to do so, I gave him my time. I did this while we were on the road: wherever we were, I gave every party the opportunity to ask questions. But I think it won't work. Each political party asks a question on each round. I recommend that the motion remains as it is worded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Rodriguez, you have the floor.

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

I would like to move a friendly amendment to the motion. Rather than eliminating the New Democratic Party's question, we could eliminate the Conservative Party's question... I'm just kidding!

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I would like to point out that Mr. Lemieux has put his motion on the table for discussion. We are trying to find a way for each member to ask a question. But right now, we are discussing the amendment as worded. If there is no other intervention or comment, I am ready to put Mr. Lemieux's amendment to a vote.

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

It is an amendment to the motion.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, is it the committee's objective to allow each member to speak, or to give each political party the same amount of time? I am asking this question in good faith. We have to establish whether the committee wants to give every member the opportunity to speak, or to give each party the same amount of time. We have four Liberal members, two members from the Bloc Québécois and one member from the New Democratic Party. Mr. Godin would have as much time as the party which has four members. Is that how we should operate? Yvon, you have more experience...

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

I am a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, and I have a lot of experience as a member of this committee. At the meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, everyone gets their turn. Each party gets to ask questions. There has never been a problem here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Lemieux, you have the floor.

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

I would like to respond to that. I think that is the main point we are debating. Each committee operates differently. I was a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade during the last session, and we operated in a different manner. The NDP member asked a question during the first round, the third round, or something like that. Yes, that is the issue. In my opinion, we have to strike a balance. That is why I am saying that it is important for each party to participate in the committee's work, but also that each member be as active as possible, because often there is not enough time for each member to ask a question.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

I would like to add something. We often have more than three witnesses. If we multiply four by seven, that's 28. Further, four times five is 20. That's already an hour and a half. If we spend 10 minutes on each witness, and there are four witnesses, that means that during the fourth round, each member will only have one minute, if we all have the right to ask a question. I say that with all due respect. Do we want everyone to be able to ask a question?

[A voice]

That's not how other committees operate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Are there other comments on Mr. Lemieux's amendment?

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

I would like to respond to what Mr. Harvey said. If we follow the procedure set out in the motion, without amendment, and we reach a fourth round, every member will be able to speak.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

That depends on the number of witnesses.

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

If we reach a fourth round—and that is why the motion is worded as it is—every member of the committee will get a turn.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Lemieux, you have the floor.

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

You are right, but during the last session, there was not enough time for four rounds. We often only have two rounds, sometimes three, but no more than three rounds. Actually, exceptionally, once there was a fourth round of questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Fine. Since there are no other observations, I am ready. Is the committee ready to vote on the amendment? Those who are in favour of the amendment to eliminate the NDP from the third round? Opposed?

There is one abstention.

(Amendment negatived.)

I am now ready to hold the vote on the motion. Who is in favour of the motion as it stands?

(Motion agreed to)

If I may, I would like to point out that one issue was raised, that is, that every member be given the chance to speak. As your Chair, I am open to hearing motions which would receive the support of the majority of members allowing each member to speak. That, to me, is a legitimate way of operating. Of course, the committee is the master of its own fate , but I am opened to receiving motions allowing all committee members to speak.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chairman, we meet twice a week. There are more than two members of the Conservative Party, for instance, which means that they can all take turns asking questions. Different members from that party can ask questions at each meeting. We do not want to prevent the conservatives from asking questions. But it is not necessary that all the questions be asked by the same people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you for your observation. Thank you also for moving the routine motions.

We have basically completed our rules of procedures. Are there any other motions or observations with regard to procedures and the way the committee will operate?

Mr. Bélanger, you have the floor.

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

I have a point of substance, Mr. Chairman. I do not know if you want to discuss this now, or if the committee wishes to do so, but I would like us to consider discussing certain issues beginning Thursday. If members of the committee do not mind, I would like to submit two issues for discussion right now.

First, I believe that the committee usually hears from the official languages commissioner following the tabling of his annual report. I do not believe that the committee has had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Fraser after he tabled his first annual report. So that might perhaps be something to consider. I do not know whether he is available on Thursday or not.

There is a second issue, Mr. Chair, which goes back to the committee's business in 2003. That year, the Standing Committee on Official Languages of the House of Commons had prepared a fairly complete report on health, and one of the suggestions, or recommendations, contained in the report call on the official languages commissioner to investigate the state of direct health care services offered in French. Indeed, the government of Canada is responsible for directly providing certain health care services to certain segments of the population, namely native people, inmates or veterans. The report was tabled and made public last July, that is, in July 2007, and I believe it might be an excellent issue for our committee to study, especially as far as services to veterans are concerned. It is an issue which deeply touches us all.

So those are my two suggestions and I was wondering whether we could begin working on those issues beginning next Thursday.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger. But before giving you the floor, I had asked wether there were any other outstanding issues regarding procedure and routine matters of the committee, and I just want to make sure that there are none. Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Lemieux and Mr. Godin had asked to speak. I would like to give them that opportunity first.

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

No, I am done.