Official Languages Committee on Feb. 14th, 2008

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

He can continue, unless he has finished. If he has only one question, that's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

If there is unanimous consent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to be clear. We're studying the action plan and making recommendations for the next action plan. We want to know the minister's position so that we can prepare our report on the next action plan. When the new action plan comes out, perhaps we'll ask the minister again to come and explain her new action plan. The old action plan will clearly expire soon. The purpose of this committee is to study the old action plan and to make proposals for the next one. The purpose of our discussions is to prepare the government's next action plan, and some of our questions have not been answered.

I think it is honourable to ask the minister to come to the committee. They seem to be saying the minister can't answer questions. If the minister can't answer the questions, she'll say so and she'll inform the committee of that. I'm sure the minister is competent, and she will be accompanied by a competent team. She can read the blues of our one-hour and 40-minute discussion, and she'll know where we're heading. We're preparing a report on the action plan so that we can comment on it and say what we would like it to contain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to let the others speak so that we can vote on this motion this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Simard, go ahead, please.

[Raymond Simard, Liberal, Saint Boniface, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I too think we've said all there is to say on the question. The debate has been interesting, but I propose that we move on to the vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

There remains Mr. Petit.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I agree with my colleague. May I move a subamendment to the motion?

I don't want to shock you, Mr. Godin, but, with the text as it's worded now, you're going fishing, and I don't want to go. For this to be efficient once and for all, if the minister appears before this committee, she'll know—at the risk of displeasing Mr. Gravel—that she is competent enough to answer the questions.

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

That's impossible: she isn't.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

So I'm going to move the following amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Order, Mr. Rodriguez.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I would like to amend the motion so that it reads as follows: 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 and the language industries [...]

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Could you reread it slowly, please?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

After “as part of its study”, I would put instead “on the old Action Plan”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Where do you want to make that change?

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

It's in the third line of the English version, following the words “as part of its study”. I want to amend the motion so that it reads “on the old Action Plan for Official Languages”, since there isn't a new one. With the words “and solely”, I limit the debate to prevent anyone from going fishing. So we would say “and solely in the context of the plan's application in the federal public service”. It's strictly in that perspective that we should prepare the report.

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

That's what we're talking about.

[Daniel Petit, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

It's not about that. With all due respect, Mr. Godin is quite capable and knows how to manoeuvre in the context of a committee. I don't have that skill. He knows how to do it. He knows that, if the reason why the minister must appear is not limited, they'll go fishing. That way, he hopes to catch a fish or a whale, just to make the headlines. That's not what we want. As parliamentarians, we want to ensure that the amount allocated to the public service is well spent. That's our role as parliamentarians, regardless of the party to which we belong. We have to delimit the framework of the minister's testimony solely based on the report.

As Mr. Godin said, she will have an hour and a quarter to read the blues and see what was said. Depending on the questions that are put to her, she will be able to go into details. This is a question of governance, not just application. It shouldn't be forgotten that we may frequently hear the answer, “I don't know.”

Mr. Bélanger said he had been minister of official languages. He probably knows exactly how that was applied. Mr. Simard, who was his parliamentary secretary, would be an excellent witness. Those two men know how things were done. An error may have been committed at that time—in good faith, it's understood.

I'm speaking on behalf of the minister, without having to testify for her. She cannot come and testify about subjects she does not know. Messrs. Simard and Bélanger would be the most interesting witnesses. They would be able to explain to us what happened, where the errors were made and what was subsequently done. That would be interesting. The minister can only say that she has read the blues and that, in the current situation, this is about governance. I agree with Mr. Bélanger on this point: it is indeed a governance issue. However, governance is politics. We are inviting the minister in her capacity as minister, and in the context of her political role, in order to find out where we are headed. I would like the debate to focus solely on the report that we intend to table. I wouldn't want to go beyond that framework.

I've just learned that Mr. Godin does not want to be forced to submit his questions in advance. I understand why: he wants to go fishing. It's as simple as that. That's what I don't want to see happen. Mr. Godin is an excellent parliamentarian, who knows how to manoeuvre well.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chairman, that's very disrespectful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

You have a point of order?

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Yes, I have a point of order. It is condescending toward one's colleagues to presume that a member doesn't know how to direct his questions, that he is going fishing and that he doesn't address a file in a logical and concise manner. In this case, Mr. Petit has just demonstrated that the Conservative Party is disrespectful, that it is engaging in high politics rather than advancing this motion. That's utterly unacceptable.

I ask you, in your capacity as Chairman, to recall the agenda and explain to your colleagues—

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

That isn't a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

—to explain to your colleagues....

I'm talking; you'll talk afterwards.

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

I have a point of order.