Official Languages Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Graeme Truelove]

Mr. Godin moves:

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 Action Plan for Official Languages.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about other guests or future committee business. The motion proposes that we invite the minister immediately. If Mr. Lemieux does not agree, then let him say so and we'll move on to the vote.

I think that, from the standpoint of democracy, we've been more than reasonable, Mr. Lemieux. You've had the chance to speak on behalf of your fellow citizens. You nevertheless have to be fair. If your fellow citizens saw you in action today, they would be embarrassed.

All we're asking is simply that the minister appear before the committee. It seems to me this is a reasonable motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

We've now repeated the motion.

Mr. Lemieux, do you have anything else to add to that?

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

I go back to the point at the end of the last meeting, when this first came up. The issue or the concern was that the committee did not have an understanding of a certain part of the work that we had undertaken.

Monsieur Godin, in his opening remarks today, commented that in order to finish our work we invite the minister. What's up for debate is that motion: should we be inviting the minister or should we be inviting other people?

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

No.

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

Well, I didn't hear any protest—

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

Well, you can't hear everything; you speak all the time.

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

—when I was talking about the Public Service Agency of Canada. I was making points about inviting the Public Service Agency of Canada. Everybody was all right with that, because I was—

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

There has been an objection, in one sense, because we said that, if she wanted to bring it, she could do so. If we wants to invite Justin Trudeau, let her invite him.

With all due respect, the motion does not propose that we invite the minister and any other person who we think should appear before the committee. The debate isn't open yet. It's the minister, yes or no.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin. You're raising a point of debate.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

What I'm saying is that the Liberal Party itself has disavowed Justin Trudeau and yet he's getting headlines as a Liberal member--not as a member of Parliament but as a member of the Liberal Party and as one of their candidates--and it's news that affects the—

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Trudeau, who is a Liberal candidate, has nothing to do with the motion.

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

He will assist us, Chair, in finalizing our work, because I'd like clarification on the Liberal position—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I don't want to limit the members' right of expression, but they must obey the parliamentary rules that have been set. These are the two parameters in question. In that sense, your point of order is relevant, Mr. Simard. It's important that the subjects proposed be relevant to the motion.

The point is whether it's relevant to the debate. I ask you to stick to those elements that concern the motion relating to Ms. Verner. I feel that the points you've raised are not directly related to the motion, Mr. Lemieux.

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

Okay, here's a fundamental concern I have.

We're putting together a report for the plan d'action, right? Commenting on the future plan d'action, our government, in its Speech from the Throne, said that it was committed to implementing a plan d'action. So we've called in front of us certain witnesses, and topics have come up—for example, education. One of the discussions in education is that we're talking about offering French training, we're talking about offering English language instruction, we're talking about offering immersion-type programs. What I'm saying is that I don't understand the Liberal position right now, and it's obviously going to have an impact on the report.

What we are discussing is this finalization of the report. What I'm saying is that there's confusion, because here in front of the committee we have members saying, you know, we respect the choice of unilingual anglophones and unilingual francophones to pursue their language choices. But we have a star Liberal candidate speaking publicly, in front of 400 professors this time, in news that is carried across the country, saying he doesn't support that. So I'd like some clarification.

When we get to certain sections—

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin.

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

You said that the point I made could be debated and did not constitute a point of order. And yet you had just said that we had to stick to the motion. So that was a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

If we want to go in that direction, we'll summon the Conservative Party's witnesses who said that Francophones cost Canadians too much money. Do they want to have a debate on what costs a lot of money? We could also talk about the comments the former Reform Party made. Do you want us to talk about that or about the action plan? If you want us to summon witnesses, we can do that by sending them a subpoena. They'll tell you why we cost you too much money. Is that what you want?

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin. That's a point of debate, but one that brings us back to the broader debate, the one that concerns the motion.

Mr. Lemieux, go ahead.

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

Just let me say this. I'm surprised at Mr. Godin's position, because he is a strong defender of official languages and the policy's implementation. He's been a longstanding member of the committee, so I'm surprised that he is not concerned about the comments that were made insulting unilingual francophones and unilingual anglophones.

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

I was concerned about Reform insulting us too.

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

What I will say, Mr. Chair, is that I will table a motion with the committee, with 48 hours' notice, to pursue this later. I think it's an important point, and I think the Liberals have to clarify their position with respect to official languages, so I will give consideration to tabling a motion.

With respect to the specific wording of this motion, as Monsieur Godin was kind enough to have it read out again, if we want to have the minister come.... I believe the motion started because you wanted the minister to come to explain how official languages is managed within the government and its governmental departments. I think we should modify this motion to identify that.

One of the concerns I mentioned before is that there may be questions from opposition members that come up about the action plan, the priorities, what Monsieur Bernard Lord has said, what advice she is receiving, what her plan is moving forward--and she won't be able to answer those questions.

If Mr. Godin wants to be fair in allowing the minister to prepare appropriately for the committee, then it can't just be a wide-open blank cheque when she comes, which is the way in which the motion is worded right now. I think it would be advantageous if the motion were amended to say what we are going to be asking her, what we are going to be talking to her about. If we're going to be talking to her about—

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

We're not governed by Harper; we can ask her what we want. I'm sorry, you guys may be muzzled, but we're not.

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

Do you see the point, Mr. Chair?

[An hon. member]

Muzzle, muzzle.

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

So there's lots of concern with this particular motion.

Again, as soon as you enter into debate on the motion, they get all upset. Actually, I think this has been a good practice in debate, Mr. Chair, because they're not used to debate in this committee.