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.
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
My subamendment is designed simply to delete the words “the Government of Ontario”, so that the committee can ask the minister about the content of those agreements. It can also inquire about the federal rationale on the direction this subamended motion would have.
Would you please ask Mr. Coderre whether he agrees to the subamendment?
Liberal
Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC
Mr. Chairman, I will accept the subamendment. The motion will now read: “That the Standing Committee on Official Languages invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and various stakeholders [...]”. I think that is quite comprehensive. This motion will make it possible for us to decide amongst ourselves what we understand by “various stakeholders”.
I do see that as a friendly amendment. The amendment now reads...
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I will read it, Mr. Coderre. Thank you.
That the Standing Committee on Official Languages invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and various stakeholders to explain why federal money for French-language instruction is being eliminated from certain schools in Ontario.
Is that wording agreeable to Mr. Nadeau and Mr. Coderre? Very well. We will now discuss the amendment, which is still on the table. We will continue with the same speakers' list, consisting of Mr. Lemieux, Mr. Godin and Mr. Chong.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Do we not have to vote on the first subamendment before we--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
We are still debating the amendment, which is changed by the removal of “a representative from the Ontario government”.
Mr. Lemieux.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I must say that I am a bit surprised. We started with a motion by Mr. Chong which I felt was a good way of getting the information. Now the opposition wants us to talk to the federal government and insists that there should be no other witnesses. In reality, we can discuss this matter at length and not come to any understanding of why the Government of Ontario has made this decision about such an important issue. That makes no sense.
The motion provides us with some direction. There is the matter of whether we are going to do a study and whether we are going to hold one meeting or several on this issue, but now we are talking about the list of witnesses. Committees generally adopt motions that are useful, and then witnesses are discussed afterwards.
So I would like us to go back to square one and decide whether we support the motion. I think I have heard everyone else say that this is a good motion, give or take a few details. It would be useful for us to have the discussion, certainly with people from the Government of Ontario, in order to find out what happens to the federal funding.
I am against the amendment. I will simply say that the motion has become something quite different. We are no longer talking about the same motion. I do not understand why we are talking about witnesses before the motion has passed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Thank you, Mr. Lemieux.
I would like to remind the members that 20 people have already spoken on the motion. We now have an amendment. Basically, if we look at the motion we previously had in front of us, there's only the removal of “Government of Ontario”. I would like to mention to members that there is still the decision about whether various stakeholders could be invited.
At this moment, the members could take a vote on the amendment on the motion. If it is the will of the committee to pass it on, then the members can decide who will be called.
Do the members on the list wish to speak or to vote? Mr. Godin, Mr. Chong, Mr. Lebel, do you want to speak, or are you ready to vote?
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, I would like us to deal with this issue as quickly as possible; otherwise we will lose the report, which is very important for the communities. Parliament will adjourn this week and our report needs to be done. We should keep in mind that we have only 50 minutes left. We need to adopt the report and table it in the House. The communities are waiting for the report.
Whether we invite the minister or the Government of Canada is not all that important. I can go along with that, since the minister represents the Government of Canada. If we invite various stakeholders, they become witnesses. The intent is to have the Government of Ontario come before us.
When the decision was made to close the Montfort Hospital, the Quebec government at the time... As Mr. Coderre has said, we need to think back to the 1800s. At that time, people also pointed out that health was under provincial jurisdiction. However, Quebec provided support for francophone communities in Ontario. It could have minded its own business and stayed strictly within its own jurisdiction, but it did speak up and those efforts were appreciated. People need to help one another, if we are to promote the vitality of both official languages in our country.
Other measures have been taken at the federal level as well. The City of Ottawa was asked to become bilingual because it is Canada's capital. On paper, as a city in the province of Ontario, Ottawa is not officially bilingual. The federal government requested that Ottawa be bilingual so that all Canadians working here could express themselves in the official language of their choice. We have those examples of people not minding their own business, but that has allowed us to progress in certain areas.
I am prepared to support the motion as amended, and I would ask my colleagues to do the same. Regardless of the specific wording, the motion says that the minister is invited. She will explain her program to us, and she can invite the relevant experts to accompany her. After that, we will put together the list of witnesses. We will invite the people we need to hear from. If we need to invite the Ontario Minister of Education, we will do so. We want to know what is going on. The communities have a right to education in both languages. Our country is bilingual. If we can help them, we should do so.
Those are my comments. I would urge my colleagues to put an end to this discussion, to vote on the motion and then deal with our report, which is important for the minority communities in Canada.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If the term “various stakeholders” includes the Government of Ontario, then I'm willing to support the amendment, also with the understanding that obviously the Minister of Canadian Heritage cannot appear three or four times in front of this committee on three or four separate issues. She simply doesn't have time. If the understanding is twofold--first, that various stakeholders includes representatives from the Government of Ontario, and secondly, when we ask the minister to appear, that she may appear in other capacities in order to answer other questions on other issues upon which we've called her to appear--then I think we can support this motion.
If the amended motion is put with the understanding of the committee on those two issues, then I'm willing to support it.
Conservative
Conservative
Denis Lebel Conservative Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I can wait, Mr. Chair. Mr. Godin seems to want to react to what Mr. Chong has just said.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I cannot support the second point, which was that the committee would invite the minister to appear only once. We can invite her several times to talk about several different issues. We cannot compromise on that; it depends on the work we are doing. It is not up to us to make that decision for the minister. She is the one who can determine her own availability. We will invite her to come as needed. I agree with Mr. Chong.
Conservative
Denis Lebel Conservative Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I listened with great interest to the history lesson that Mr. Nadeau gave us. I find it very interesting that he refers to the past, whereas we are writing tomorrow's history today. It is quite strange to have a subamendment to take out the name of the province of one of our colleagues here, who is speaking vigorously and concernedly today about protecting French in his home province and who is helping us to preserve our two official languages.
We know that this comes under provincial jurisdiction. We want to avoid interfering in provincial jurisdiction. We want to obtain information, and this has been clear from the beginning. That said, Mr. Godin has made the point that we should continue to carry out our mandate, which is to promote the vitality of our official languages throughout Canada. I am very pleased that we are doing this.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Everyone who was on my list has spoken. We will now vote on the amendment, which replaces the words “the governments of Canada and Ontario” by “the Minister of Canadian Heritage.“
(Amendment agreed to)
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
We voted on the amendment, but we have not yet voted on the main motion. So I would like to move an amendment to what has become the main motion. May I read it out, Mr. Chair?
Bloc
Richard Nadeau Bloc Gatineau, QC
I move that we omit everything after the following words: “That the Standing Committee on Official Languages invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage and various stakeholders to explain [...]” and add the following words: “The functioning of the federal-provincial/territorial financial agreements regarding French language instruction “(French as a first language and French as a second language)”.