Official Languages Committee on June 10th, 2010

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

I am raising a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

I am also raising a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Wait a moment. I will give you the floor later on.

I would remind committee members that one of the basic principles that we need to follow in order for the committee to run smoothly is to show respect to parliamentarians. I feel that, at this stage in our committee work, this aspect is relevant. This is a reminder for all members. As the saying goes, if the hat fits, wear it. This is important. I would invite you to respect parliamentarians as we proceed with our work.

I would also like to remind committee members that we are now doing the work of the parliamentary committee. This is not question period with its 30-second interventions. I would like members to allow others to clarify their thoughts and not have to limit themselves to short terse sentences.

Mr. D'Amours, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I would like to refresh your memory, because I think that you need it. It was you yourself who said, when a point of order was raised earlier, that discussions should nevertheless focus on the issue at hand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Absolutely.

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

You are mistaken about my point of order. You must understand that I was never joking, and that I never said that Ms. Wong's comments about her CV were a joke, never. Misinformation is starting to float around again. People should listen to what others are saying, and think twice before saying such ridiculous things. I never said that Ms. Wong and her CV were a joke. Before opening their mouths, all members should think twice.

That is all I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you for your clarification, Mr. D'Amours.

Now it is Mr. Godin who would like to raise a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, I would like to remind you that you are supposed to remain neutral as the chair. I do not appreciate your comments, that is, your congratulating everyone. In my opinion, this is inappropriate. I want to be clear on this issue. If Ms. Glover does not know the people in her caucus, perhaps she could meet them at the restaurant to get to know them better. We are here, in committee, to work.

In addition, I think that this is a tactic to sabotage the report on immigration that we are supposed to be preparing. That is what this is all about.

I will stop here, because we are losing time. We should be voting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Mr. Godin, for this point of order.

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

I have been aware of Air Canada's history since 1998. The people from Air Canada are breaking the law, that is what they are doing. It is time to put them in their place, and it is our job to do this.

In addition, the motion is not solely about inviting Air Canada here to make some complaint forms available. We are not here in order to congratulate the company, enough of this is already being done in their enRoute magazine, which congratulates the company night and day. This is a motion in response to an infraction of the law.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, I think that you are exceeding the scope of a point of order.

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

That is all that we want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Mr. Godin, if you wish to intervene, you will do so when you have the right to speak. Up until now, you have not been on the list of interveners, but if you wish to do so, you can.

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

No, and you will not find me on the list either. Let's go ahead and vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

As you wish, Mr. Godin. You are free to express yourself or not. That is your choice.

Ms. Wong, I think the road is open for you to continue your comments, unless you want to--

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I would like to remind you about a rule which I will read to you:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the standing orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Consequently, the number of interventions that a member may make in a committee, as well as the length of speeches, is not subject, a priori to any limitations. A member can therefore have the floor as long and as often as he or she desires, providing that the chair has in fact given him or her the floor.

Mr. Chair, everyone here is entitled to speak. We may have differing opinions, but each member of this committee is entitled to speak.

The standing orders also state:

The freedom the standing orders give committees regarding the number of times a person may speak and the length of speeches does not prevent a committee from adopting its own rules [...]

In my opinion, it is useful to hear from everybody. I will give the floor to Ms. Wong.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

To what rule in O'Brien and Bosc are you referring?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The rule is found on page 1051, under the heading: "Rules of debate and the decision-making process".

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

All right, thank you.

With respect to your point of order, Mr. Godin, I completely agree with you that my role as chair requires that I maintain some neutrality. However, you will agree with me that, as chair, I must rule on the relevance of comments with respect to the issues we are examining. That is what I'm trying to do to the best of my ability.

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

Mr. Chair, what I wanted to say was in response to the statement that a CV makes it possible to know an individual better. We are not here to get to know each other, but rather to discuss a motion. That is what I wanted to say.

You are saying that our points of order are delaying things. Ms. Wong can talk for 20 minutes should she so wish, that does not bother me and I will respect that. She's entitled to speak. I am familiar with the standing orders. I also know that the government does not want to receive the report on immigration and I think that this is what this is all about. I simply want to state this publicly. That has nothing to do with Ms. Wong. It is a coincidence that these points of order were raised at the same time. The fewer the points of order the faster things will go.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

I am pleased to see that you acknowledge my responsibility, as the chair, for ruling on the relevance of comments. I do agree that this may lead to discussion, but I can assure you that I'm going to try to do this. As part of a discussion, it is normal to present a preamble to put things in their context. As the saying goes, in order to understand where you're headed, you have to know where you've come from. I think that this was what Ms. Wong was doing.

This time, I'm going to say it in French, Ms. Wong. You can go back to where you left off and make your statement.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for allowing me to go on. This is a committee I'm not normally with, and I surely do not feel welcome anymore. I think I would hesitate the next time, if I'm invited back.

However, I'll come back to the comment.

Coming from my background, coming from the business point of view, and also from the act, I think the reason we are all here is because we bring our own experiences to the table so that Canadians can benefit from them. Since you don't know me, I presume you don't need that. My resumé...if you were to allow me, I could speak for two or three days.

Anyway, let's get back to the subject. I surely agree with the argument by our colleague, Shelly Glover, that nowhere in the act are they—meaning Air Canada—under obligation to provide such materials to the public, and that it will not foster the perception of official languages as a central part of Canadian identity. I'm proudly Canadian, so as a Canadian, I have the right to talk about that.

This makes the Official Languages Act again perceived as an obligation, an imposition, or a concession. Regarding his recent report, the commissioner spoke to us just this week about how we need to better promote linguistic duality and bilingualism. This will not achieve that. This, again, is a motion that will bring about strife.

Allowing the public to voice their opinions on the service received, whether they're good or bad, should be considered, but this should be balanced to not only suggest the complaints, but also the congratulations. Likewise, as I said, as a customer, as a frequent flyer, I do appreciate a lot of the good work that Air Canada has been doing.

So I actually speak in favour of Sylvie's amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Steven Blaney]

Thank you, Ms. Wong. I want to reassure you that you are always welcome at this committee.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

Thank you.