Official Languages Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like to finish what I have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Yes, you're going to do that, Mr. Gravel, but there are a number of people speaking.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Chairman, if we asked the minister to appear, it's because we think she is competent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Gravel, I'm going to finish my remarks, and then I'm going to hand over to you.

I would like us to speak one at a time because, otherwise, we won't be able to cope. I remind committee members that this meeting is in two parts. The first, which concerns committee business, is public. I also remind you that what we're doing now is public: the population of Canada can see us, listen to us and observe us. Then we're going to go back to the report.

With those comments, I turn the floor over to you, Mr. Gravel.

I would like us to listen to Mr. Gravel.

[Raymond Gravel, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

I'd like to emphasize that I didn't interrupt the others earlier.

If we invite the minister, it's because we want to ask her questions. If she is the minister for official languages, she must be competent in that area. That's why we're asking her to appear. Unless she doesn't want to come. That's what I'm wondering. If she doesn't appear, either she doesn't want to come, or she is incompetent. I don't know. I don't doubt that she's competent, but I want her to appear, and I think Mr. Godin's motion is entirely appropriate.

We heard witnesses last week. I'm not an expert in the field, but I observed that they did not answer questions because either they didn't know the answer, or that wasn't within their responsibility or duties. If we summon other witnesses to appear and they tell us the same thing, I don't see how that will be helpful. We're going to waste our time. I think the minister could give us some clarification on these questions. That's why I'm in favour of the idea that she should appear.

By the way, the word “argent” is masculine, not feminine. I note that the feminine has been used for a while now. Furthermore, Mr. Lemieux said that we were going to ask “straight” questions. I don't know what he means by that, but whatever the case may be, we're going to ask the minister “straight” questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you.

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have a minister responsible, and she's from the political field. She's the person who tells the officials, following political decisions, how the structures should be developed. The fact that she was around in the year 10 or the year 1 before Jesus Christ is not very important: she's the political person responsible in the context of this matter.

In these conditions, the motion introduced is entirely honourable. We're asking the minister to come and explain to us parliamentarians points that we consider problematical and that are part of a file that is her political responsibility. We must vote in favour of this motion, since we're asking the person concerned, the minister, to come and do what she must do to clarify matters for us. If we have specific questions to ask her concerning structures, it is up to her to answer us, not officials who are locked into a structure that they have no power to change.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Nadeau.

Mr. Godin.

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

I'm going to try to be brief, Mr. Chairman.

I've never seen this in the history of the Standing Committee on Official Languages. It's true that this is a committee that normally shouldn't be political. Since 1998, every time we've wanted to ask a minister to appear before the committee, we've never argued as we are doing now.

Mr. Lemieux said that the questions will have to be direct and specific. Mr. Chairman, I won't present my questions to Mr. Lemieux the day before to determine whether they are good or not. I'm going to ask my questions, allow the minister to answer them and see what comes out of them. She'll answer the way she wants, and I'll feel good about the questions that I've asked her. I don't have to ask anyone whether my question is good or not. I can live with my question and with the answer.

We're inviting the minister responsible for official languages to the committee. She may be accompanied by whomever she wants to assist her in answering the questions ask her. That's just normal. I must admit that Mr. Gravel is right to ask whether she is competent, because every time we've asked a minister to appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we've run into difficulties. This isn't the first time that has happened; one need only read the blues from our other meetings.

A little respect, please. We want to have the minister appear before the committee; let's vote on this question and it will be resolved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

There are three speakers on the list. I would invite committee members to maintain a respectful debating tone.

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

Decorum.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Yes, we must maintain a certain amount of decorum on this 14th day of February. I ask members to stick to the argument.

We'll continue with Messrs. Lemieux, Rodriguez and Harvey.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to explain because I don't think I was impolite or that I used a tone... The situation is such that we have to get serious.

I said what had happened in committee in the past. Every time we've wanted a minister to appear before the committee, there has been resistance from the government; it has even always voted against it. The government has never voted in favour of a minister appearing before the committee. We have a right, as a committee, to ask a minister to come and answer our questions. My motion is in proper form. I think this is really a waste of time. We could spend the entire day here and give committee members a chance to speak, but we want the minister to appear before the committee. I'm not asking any more than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Lemieux.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to just make a few comments. With respect to Mr. Godin, he says he's never seen this. That's because under your excellent leadership, Mr. Chair, we are getting some format to these meetings. The way it used to happen, certainly in the first session when I was here, all of sudden, 30 seconds before the end of a meeting, Monsieur Godin or another member would come up with an idea. Maybe it was in a motion, sometimes not, and all of a sudden that would just carry. That would be our next order of business. There was very little debate or no debate.

Under your leadership, at least people have to put forward a motion. This is what happened at the last meeting: with 30 seconds to go, Monsieur Godin said he wanted the minister, and I think he expected it to carry. But he had to be reminded that there are rules associated with this committee. One of the rules is that you deposit a motion and the motion is open to debate.

The other point I want to make is that the minister has always appeared. Every time the committee has asked a minister to appear, the minister has appeared. The minister has been open to questions. The minister has given good presentations. The minister has addressed the questions asked of her. So I reject what Mr. Godin is insinuating. Right now we're talking about his motion, and within his motion we're also discussing— because debate has to be as open as possible—which witnesses would contribute to the finalization of this report of our study on official languages.

So this is where the debate is. This is not wasting time. This is debate. We live in a democracy. This committee operates under democratic principles, which means MPs have the opportunity to speak, and I thank you for respecting the speakers' list because there are MPs on your speakers' list who want to address this issue and they should be given the opportunity to do so.

With respect to Monsieur Gravel, yes, he is new, and perhaps he's not used to democratic debate. He, too, calls it a waste of time. In every committee when there's a motion on the floor, members are allowed to debate the motion. They're allowed to express themselves, and they can take two minutes or they can take ten minutes. That's their right as MPs, especially when we're representing the people who elected us. It's not wasting time. It's not inutile. It serves a useful function. That's the way the committee works.

I'm glad to see we're having some debate in this committee about a motion. Oftentimes, as I mentioned, Mr. Chair, we don't have debate, just a lot of arm waving, a lot of raising of voices, and then all of a sudden something, our

paths appear before us. How did we get here?

So I'm actually glad to see we're following some process and we're having some discussion and debate about, for example, the important work of witnesses, who the witnesses should be, and why they should be invited or not invited. As I mentioned before, MPs should be allowed the latitude of debate. That's the way it works around here. It's the same in the House. In the House you have a certain amount of time to express yourself, and you can be very narrow in your comments or you can be wider in your comments. But allow MPs the opportunity to express themselves.

Chair, I don't know why he feels threatened by that. I don't know why Monsieur Godin feels threatened by that. Why are they both up in arms about what we're discussing?

To go back to the issue of who could come in front of this committee, I'd just like to remind committee members that in 2003—so this is under the previous government—the Canada Public Service Agency was created and the Treasury Board Secretariat transferred its responsibilities to the Public Service Agency. The Public Service Agency is responsible, for example, for very hands-on types of implementation decisions and policy directives for establishing policies with respect to official languages within the public service. So if we have specific questions about who makes decisions—who's responsible for what, how does this work in this department, how does that translate over there, how is this being rolled out in the public service—we should be talking to the Canada Public Service Agency. It also has the responsibility to issue directives under parts IV, V, and VI of the Official Languages Act.

So if it can issue directives, I think these are the questions we have. This is the question Monsieur Godin raised at the end of the last meeting. The question he raised was that we're not sure who is responsible for what. I'm saying the Public Service Agency has very direct responsibilities. Yes, ask them direct questions. If they were here before and you didn't get the answers you wanted, well, I would say you either didn't ask your questions properly or you didn't obligate the witness to answer your specific questions, if you asked those specific questions.

The Public Service Agency also has a responsibility for evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of its policies, so not only is it responsible for implementing, but the feedback loop is there as well. It is supposed to be evaluating the successes and the challenges, the weaknesses, the strengths, and then it would revise its policies to better implement the Official Languages Act within the public service. To me, that's where the questions need to be directed, and that's where we want to have our debate.

There are other things, Mr. Chair. While we're talking about this study we're doing, I'd like to raise an issue that's of concern to me, and that is that I have a hard time understanding something. We're working here as a committee, and we try to work together as MPs, but there are definitely parties at work here, right? The Liberal Party has a particular position on official languages and on the Official Languages Act and how it should be implemented, as does the NDP, as does the Bloc, as do the Conservatives. We're not always aligned perfectly. We try to accomplish our work, but I must admit that recently I've certainly become confused about where the Liberal Party is coming from. It actually affects the work on this committee, because we have four MPs here from the Liberal Party who are expressing the point of view, I suppose, of the Liberal Party as it applies to the Official Languages Act, as it applies to the plan d'action and its priority across Canada.

One of the things I would like to bring up are the comments concerning Justin Trudeau, because I feel there is confusion here between what he has said and what the members across are saying. I would like to discuss whether he might be an appropriate witness to bring in front of the committee because of some of the things he said. I want to remind the committee of some of the things he has said.

They're shaking their heads because it's a bit embarrassing for the Liberal Party, because there is this huge disconnect that is causing confusion. One of the areas--

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Go ahead, Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

We're off track now. Aren't there rules stating that you're called back to order when you go off topic? He's talking to us about elections, about the person who, perhaps one day, we don't know, will be a candidate, and so on. We're completely off topic, which is the Action Plan for Official Languages. That's what I wanted to bring to your attention. I think Mr. Lemieux is doing a little too much ranting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

In fact, Mr. Nadeau, that's a point of debate.

I would just like to remind members that we've been debating the motion for nearly an hour. There are two more speakers on the list. So I would invite Mr. Lemieux to—

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

Certainly you can invite me. But to respond to the point of order, we are discussing who should be appearing in front of the committee, and we're saying that MPs should have the latitude to debate. So we're in the midst of a debate. As soon as they don't like something, they want to terminate the debate.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Try to be reasonable.

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

It is reasonable. I'm explaining where the disconnect is. Justin Trudeau....

Could we have some order, Chair? I'm trying to talk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Please speak one at a time.

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

Justin Trudeau is a member of the Liberal Party and a Liberal candidate.

He's a star candidate, well known across Canada, and he has said some embarrassing things.

I would like us to invite Mr. Justin Trudeau to this committee so we can clarify his position relative to that of committee members and that of the Liberal Party.

It's not because he's Justin Trudeau. He has made some significant comments regarding bilingualism and official languages. One of the things he has said, for example, is that unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones are lazy if they do not pursue bilingualism.

This is important, because I don't understand the Liberal position on official languages. On the one hand they are saying here in committee that they support official languages, which is supposed to respect the choices of unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Pardon me, Mr. Lemieux, but I must interrupt you. I would like to ask you to conclude on the subject of the motion. In fact, I would like to know your point of view on the motion, and for you to conclude, if possible.