Evidence of meeting #40 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
You made a ruling that he needs to stick to the motion. If we want to have a debate about the Russell bilingualism signage law we can have that debate, but if we're going to be discussing the motion, then we should be discussing the motion.
You just made that clear to Mr. Coderre. He must be deaf in one ear. You can explain it in his other ear. You made a call. He should stick to the motion.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chair, if I am deaf in one ear, then Mr. Lemieux is mute, because he remained silent.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I am speaking to the motion since I am talking about first-class citizens and official languages in Ontario. I am trying to understand the relevance of conducting such a study.
Mr. Chair, I find it ironic that Mr. Lemieux is lecturing us on jurisdictional issues. Our role is to protect the official languages, regardless of where citizens live. We should move a motion to congratulate Mr. Hill, the mayor of the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, and his council. In spite of the member, Mr. Hill has shown how important the official languages are. He should be commended for that. I am looking forward to the next election, so that we can have a member who truly talks about the importance of our official languages.
Mr. Chair, we agree with the motion in principle. Our party created the Official Languages Act. We invested massively in official language programs; we did not make budget cutbacks, as the current government has done. My colleague, Mr. Petit, spoke about the Liberal governments of Ontario and New Brunswick. I know what is motivating the government to ask such questions. However, it is our responsibility to address the issue of jurisdiction.
Allow me to make an aside. We will have to be very careful. In Quebec, public schools are non-denominational. My colleague, Mr. Chong, knows that a constitutional amendment was needed to secularize the public schools in Quebec. However, we have to understand how the agreements are implemented. I would move an amendment to the motion, Mr. Chair. Before talking about the Government of Canada and the Government of Ontario... We have received letters and have been calling for some time now on the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages to appear before our committee.
Before hearing from provincial government officials, I would like the minister to come and talk to us about all things related to the official languages. Basically, if we want to talk about an agreement—Mr. Godin seems to agree with me—then we have to broaden the debate on the official languages. Therefore, to state that the Government of Canada...
I am quite fond of our public servants. I have worked with them and have enormous respect for their work, but I believe it is the minister's responsibility. Before dealing with the motion, I would like the analyst to give us some perspective on the matter.
I am ready to support the motion, but I would move an amendment inviting the Minister of Canadian Heritage, not her officials, to explain how the official languages agreement is implemented. We could also discuss the upcoming cut-rate agreement reached with the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, which should be made public tomorrow.
The Liberal Party of Canada supports the principle, it is the party that created the Official Languages Act. Now, we want to work responsibly within our jurisdiction. We can study pretty much anything we want. We should study what is happening in Russell County and the lack of action on the part of the parliamentary secretary for official languages. I will move a motion to deal with the signage issue in Russell and ask that we invite Mayor Hill to ask him whether it is acceptable for Mr. Galganov to treat francophones as second-class citizens. This is something we can do, Mr. Chair.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I am speaking to the motion, Mr. Chairman. As you said, we can consider all issues, but they must be pertinent. The motion is perhaps in order, but I am not sure that it is pertinent, because we don't have all of the information. We can wait for the analyst to give us his view, and consider the motion at the next meeting or, if my colleagues agree, amend the words “Government of Canada” and replace them with “the Minister of Canadian Heritage”.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Can you put your amendment in writing, Mr. Coderre, so that we can vote?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
I want the committee to adjourn for two minutes to enable me to do so.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Can I speak regarding the main motion while he's preparing his amendment?
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
We would strike “Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario” and replace that with “the Minister of Canadian Heritage and a representative of the Government of Ontario”.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Do you want me to reread the amendment? It's okay? Very well.
Are you ready to vote on the amendment? Are there any questions or comments on the amendment?
Mr. Lemieux.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Chair. This is discussing the amendment, which ties back to the motion, which ties back to Mr. Coderre's comments.
The first thing is that when I last spoke, I was not lecturing on morality. I was simply saying that we as a committee should hear information. We should ask witnesses to come and explain what is going on and give the committee the opportunity to better understand the issues. I don't see why Mr. Coderre would be on the defensive about that and feel that I was lecturing him. I was simply stating that we have an opportunity here to discuss an important issue and we should discuss it. We should hear what the facts of the case are.
The second thing I want to point out is the lack of logic regarding Mr. Coderre's comments, because the first comments he made were that we should in fact respect the areas of responsibility, the mandates of other levels of government. He then moved into attacking me for not interfering in other levels of government. So on the one hand he's saying, “Respect levels of government and respect their mandates”, and he then attacks me because I am respecting their mandates and their champs de compétence. Then he finishes off by saying we should be respecting the mandates and the champs de compétence of these other levels of government. So there's a real lack of logic in Mr. Coderre's thinking.
Regarding the Russell bylaw, we're talking about a municipal bylaw here.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I apologize for interrupting, Mr. Lemieux. Mr. Coderre has a point of order.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
You want us to respect your judgment. In that case, he should not talk about Russell either.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, I see that Liberal hypocrisy is strong this morning.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I accept your point of order.
I remind committee members that exchanges can continue as long as members want. However, the motion is the first point on the agenda, and the second is the report. It is up to committee members to decide whether the report will be tabled in the House prior to adjournment.
Mr. Lemieux.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Let me finish. I see that Mr. Coderre and Liberal hypocrisy are in full swing today, because after you ruled that he should in fact stick to the motion, he just bulldozed right over your ruling and continued to talk about the Russell bilingual bylaw. Now, when another member wants to discuss it, he wants the microphones cut off and no debate on this.
Chair, we need to respect your ruling. So once again, as I say, it's the hypocrisy that we receive from the other end.
The point I'm making is that there are different levels of government, they do have different mandates, and they do need to be respected. I'm not suggesting that with Mr. Chong's motion we should be taking decisive action and ruling on exactly what's going on. In fact, there's an agreement that exists. I'm saying we should investigate that and we should listen to witnesses. That's completely different from what's going on with the Russell bylaw, where we have no agreement with the Township of Russell or with their bylaw.
Anyway, I did want to address those points, particularly the lack of logic from Mr. Coderre. I think I could find a good secondary institution that offers logic courses that might help Mr. Coderre with his future arguments.
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative