Official Languages Committee on Feb. 24th, 2009

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

I thought that this problem has been resolved. But the question is being asked again this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, please, I would ask you to...

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

It is not just today; it has always been like that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Just a moment. This morning, our witness was able to give us a good briefing. I must say, to Mr. Lemieux and to all committee members, that, as chair, I must follow the speaking order, and I did so up until the third round.

Here is what I am proposing. I do not know if you want to make a decision on this this morning. If the committee members feel that each parliamentarian has been able to “grill” the witness to their satisfaction, and if you so desire, after the third round, I can allow committee members who have not had the opportunity to speak in the previous rounds and who wish to do so to speak. If you tell me that you obtained all the information you wanted, I could then give the floor to one or two members who had not yet been able to speak.

In my opinion, it is preferable to talk about it now instead of in front of witnesses. I am now going to listen to a few speakers. If my proposal is not acceptable, the existing speaking order will apply.

Mr. Lemieux would like to finish making his position known. Then, I will listen to Mr. Nadeau, Mr. Petit, Mr. Galipeau and Ms. Guay.

Mr. Lemieux.

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

I wanted to say three things but, Mr. Godin interrupted me after the second.

First, it's fine that there was an agreement among the whips. My first words were “it's fine”.

Second, as a member, I am entitled to raise a concern. It is my right to do so. If you wish to criticize me, that is fine, but I have the right to voice my concerns.

Third, if the NDP asks a question in each round and the committee is an agreement, I will accept that, like the last time. I also accept the fact that he wants to have someone here to ask a question in his place. However, I have the same concern as members who come here every week but are unable to take part in the discussion.

Mr. Chair, I have nothing more to day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I could submit to you yet again the speaking order that was determined at the first committee meeting.

Mr. Nadeau.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, it would be wise, instead of what you are proposing, to proceed with the fourth round, and if the first party to speak, for example the Liberal Party, does not wish to do so because it has exhausted the subject matter or because of any other reason, we could move on to the next speaker. You need only put that question. It would be much simpler that way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I will take note of the committee's wishes in this regard. I find your idea interesting.

Mr. Petit.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have tried to come up with some kind of procedure that will enable us to work. The Standing Committee on Official Languages has already met twice, and the same problem has come up in other committees on which my colleagues and I sit. I'm concerned about the fact that there will be two useless Conservative members here, because when we have three rounds, there will always be two members who are unable to speak.

There is something that is beginning to worry me a great deal. During the last session, our side had four members, each of whom managed to speak. Now, we are five—yet two members on our side will not be able to ask the witnesses questions, or even speak to you, Mr. Chair. That is very serious. We should take a close look at the length of the rounds of questions. Instead of giving everyone seven minutes for the first round, we could give everyone three or five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

That time is already five minutes, Mr. Petit.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to express my concern. This time, I had the opportunity to put the first question, but that may not always be the case. Sometimes, I might be left with the impression that I have no business here.

There is one thing we can agree on. I know that this is very good for Mr. Rodriguez, since the Liberals will have an opportunity to ask questions. I call that muzzling the members of Parliament. Indirectly, this procedure stifles our freedom of expression, and I find that absolutely inconceivable.

I would ask the chair to study this issue very closely, along with other people. He might even see what other committees are doing. We have to find some way of allowing my colleagues and myself—those colleagues who may be unable to take the floor—to address the committee and to ask questions of the witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Petit.

I have three speakers on the list. Let's move on. I have Mr. Galipeau's name.

Ms. Guay, you have the floor.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

We followed the same procedure when the Liberals were in power. They were six on the committee, and they did not all always have a chance to speak. They never had a fit because they could not speak. Moreover, I am against limiting testimony to one hour. When we welcomed the witness this morning, we did not specify that his testimony would last from 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. No specific timeframe was given. I think that the information we were given was extremely useful. I think that restricting our time with the witnesses, or cutting off their testimony at the end of one hour, is irresponsible and disrespectful. These people travelled here to see us. And on that topic, Mr. Blaney, I hope that you will play your role as chair and determine whether this is appropriate or not.

Let's please stop whining. It's awful. We look like school children, but we're parliamentarians. Take the time allotted to you. If some of you don't want to speak, then don't speak. You have that right. If some of our members don't want to speak during the fourth round, that's up to them. They are intelligent enough to make that decision themselves. But if we start fighting at every meeting, this committee's work will not go very well. We will never be able to work properly, and we will never deal with any issues as we should.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

If I may, perhaps this is a tempest in a teapot. If we count the first speaker and the four rounds, four government representatives spoke. Earlier, Mr. Nadeau said that it would depend on what parliamentarians wanted, if they have any questions to ask. I would put my trust in parliamentarians.

I will listen to one last comment, Mr. D'Amours. If others speakers wish to have the floor, we will hear from them, but I have no desire to revisit the debate on the speaking order. I think that we will be able to find a way to make this work.

Are there any other comments?

So we will hear from Mr. D'Amours, followed by Mr. Godin and Mr. Petit.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Chair, I will not drag it out. The government members of this committee should be honest enough to recognize that there was a vote and that the decision was made to establish a new schedule, different from the one in place during the previous Parliament. The government members should be respectful and stop talking all at once. Whether it works for them or not, that is one thing, but we voted, and the majority ruled. I think that we need to stop hearing about this. We could also vote on other things, and it might further upset government members. Let's remain calm and move on.

I hope that we won't need to discuss this again because if we do, I would be pleased to table a motion to vote on this matter again. There are more important things then fighting about whether a member is entitled to speak. If the members wanted to share their time to allow their colleagues to speak, there were entitled to do so.

The committee made a decision about the speaking order, and that decision should be respected once and for all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, y you seem somewhat reluctant, like you are trying to avoid...

I want to add that I agree with Mr. Nadeau. Today, for example, we had a lot of time; in fact we have until 11 a.m. We could have given everyone a chance to speak, as we have done in the past when I chaired the committee that toured the country. We had the time. If others wished to ask questions, we gave them the opportunity to do so. It's not the end of the world. When we are short on time, we are unable to do this. When we have enough time, we will be reasonable. I think we need to adopt this approach to our work.

Also, we have already decided who will speak and when. I am not saying that we are pleased with the decision. The Conservatives and the Liberals have opted for a formula that is not to our liking. I think that people can change their minds. I lost a round. I wasn't here for the fourth round. You do not have to believe me, but I was planning to pass on the next one. I'd already asked the questions I wanted to ask. That is how we need to proceed.

Furthermore, there is nothing unusual about this. I have seen Liberals do it when they were in power, and you've even done it yourself in the past few years. When certain members have five minutes they ask questions for two and half minutes, and then they give their colleagues the rest of their time. This is what happens.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I will conclude this discussion. I apologize to their government members, but the witness caught me a little off guard. He thanked us. I could have allowed the committee members the opportunity to speak. The witness caught me off guard when he said he was happy to have been invited and thanked us.

Next week, we will hear from the Commissioner. Thank you.

Meeting adjourned.