Evidence of meeting #15 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
—and to explain to your colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that we are here to move the files forward, that they must respect members and that when we ask for something as simple as meeting a minister, it's not simply to waste the time of parliamentarians and the citizens who elect us. On the contrary, it's to move issues forward. That's not what's being shown by the Conservative Party, which is a shame in this debate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I'm going to finish with Mr. Nadeau.
Mr. Nadeau, there is a point of order, but your speech may form the subject of a debate as well. Your comment is like a hybrid.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I'm going to ask Mr. Harvey to speak to the point of order. Then I would like us to go back to Mr. Petit's amendment.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
After Mr. Nadeau's distractions, Mr. Godin's questions were in good faith, as to whether we're talking about the old or the new plan. We're seeking clarification. I think that directly concerns the debate. If Mr. Nadeau is really doing something else than listening, that's not my problem. I believe that Daniel and I have been particularly respectful. There were no words. If saying that someone is going fishing is disrespectful, the Bloc québécois has reached the height of linguistic sensitivity.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
The questions that were put to Mr. Godin were related to the debate. I believe they were fair and relevant, and Mr. Godin answered them; that's it. The questions that my colleague Daniel Petit just raised are extremely relevant to the debate. I sit on other committees and I know that the Standing Committee on Official Languages isn't the only one that tries to determine what the debate will be about when the minister visits.
We're talking about an old program that lasted five years. We're presenting the conclusions of this program and we are proposing a new program, about which a report will be coming out soon. We will agree to say that this is a fairly broad topic. In saying “going fishing”, Daniel was perhaps a little hard, but the scope of the debate is expanding greatly. Requesting clarification on what the debate will be about is particularly relevant, with all due deference to my Bloc québécois colleagues. That's the minimum amount of respect we can show the minister, who will be coming to answer questions. That will help her prepare.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you, Mr. Harvey.
Mr. Rodriguez, you have a point of order.
Liberal
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal Honoré-Mercier, QC
Mr. Chairman, the situation today calls for apologies, and I'm weighing my words. They should apologize to the Minister of Canadian Heritage for referring to her as incompetent. If they are protecting her in this way, then they don't have confidence in her, Mr. Chairman. They should apologize.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
It's not a point of order. We'll go back to Mr. Petit's amendment.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Yes, I have a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, the motion is clear. It states: “[...] as part of its study on the Action Plan for Official Languages.”
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
That's not a point of order. We can let Mr. Petit speak.
Mr. Petit, go ahead on the subject of your amendment.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I'd like to answer Mr. Godin. He asks a question; I think he has a right to an answer. The fact is that we have previously studied other parts of the action plan, we've even previously prepared a report, and so on. We are currently on a specific part of the action plan concerning the public service. That's what was agreed. I think Mr. Godin's motion should reflect what's currently being studied, that is to say the application of the old plan to the federal public service. That's the sole purpose of our efforts.
For it to be well prepared, if witnesses or other persons have to accompany the minister, we have to know exactly what to expect. Let's suppose there is a question and we're told that this isn't the department's responsibility, it's just so we can work.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
With your permission, simply to clarify matters, I'm going to reread the motion, just to recall, Mr. Petit, that the mandate concerns the study of the federal public service, but also of the language industries.
Pardon me, Mr. Petit.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I said I simply wanted to remind you that the study we're currently conducting, the report that we want to discuss once we're in camera—the way things are going, that could be at the next meeting, I inform you right away, since time is passing—concerns not only the federal public service, but also the language industries. That's in the first chapter; I can't talk about it, but...
I'm going to reread the motion that you wish to amend:
That the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, the Hon. Josée Verner, be immediately called upon to appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages as part of its study on the old Action Plan for Official Languages, and solely in the context of the plan's application in the federal public service [...]
Conservative
