Official Languages Committee on June 21st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Welcome to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Today is Tuesday, June 21, 2011, and this is our second meeting. We are here to discuss committee business and the routine motion concerning the questioning of witnesses.

We're here to discuss a live motion that was moved by Monsieur Galipeau. It is live on the floor, and there is a subsequent amendment that was moved by Mr. Bélanger. They are not yet adopted. That is where we are right now.

You should all have a copy of both the original motion that was moved by Monsieur Galipeau and the subsequent amendment that is now live on the floor, which was moved by Mr. Bélanger.

Just to be clear, the amendment is as follows:

That the order of questions shall be as follows: for the first round, seven (7) minutes be allocated in the following order: New Democratic Party, Liberal Party, and Conservative Party; for the second round, five (5) minutes be allocated in the following order: New Democratic Party, Conservative Party and Liberal Party; for the third round, five (5) minutes be allocated in the following order: New Democratic Party, Conservative Party and Liberal Party; for the fourth round, five (5) minutes be allocated in the following order: Conservative Party, New Democratic Party and Liberal Party.

That is where we are right now, discussion and debate on that amendment.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

Mr. Chair, some information is missing, something from what Mr. Galipeau said. We will very likely find it in the transcript. At the request of Mr. Julian, who was replacing Ms. Michaud, Mr. Galipeau said that he had intended to make a second proposal, on further to his resolution, which is written above.

He had intended to propose an order for the speaking turns in which the third party—so, the Liberal party—could speak only once during the entire testimony. I am against that. I think that it is important that the committee members be aware that this was to come. Mr. Julian's motion was put forward in reaction to what Mr. Galipeau recommended presenting, if his first motion had been adopted.

When Mr. Julian's resolution was rejected, I presented this one for form's sake. That is the word I used then. Mr. Chair, I don't know if this morning we want to start a discussion that could go on for two hours with no outcome. After our meeting last week, I suggested that we refer this question to the steering committee, which has already been set up, to find a solution that is acceptable to everyone, if possible. I would like to know if the committee is interested in proceeding this way. We might be able to avoid a prolonged debate.

I would like to let the committee know about something else. Ms. Foote, the whip for the Liberal Party, intends to raise this matter this afternoon during the meeting of the House leaders and whips. Three or four committees have already established their sequences, and no two are the same. We risk finding ourselves in a somewhat bizarre situation at times.

I would like to know whether the chair, Mr. Chong, would like to proceed this way. Are we simply going to get into the heart of the debate and see what happens?

In passing, I would like to take the opportunity on this first day of summer to wish everyone a happy summer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Lauzon, you have the floor.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I understand Mr. Bélanger's position, but I would like to say that the committee is mandated to manage its business the way it wants to. We are deciding what is going to happen here, within this committee. These are the rules that we need to follow during our deliberations.

I simply wanted to point that out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Monsieur Harris.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I had brought up an amendment to Monsieur Bélanger's amendment, which he had accepted as a friendly amendment, but it wasn't really accepted by the committee.

Would it still be a friendly?

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

What was that?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

That was to change your proposed third round to Conservative, NDP, Conservative.

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

Yes, I had accepted that as a friendly.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

And that would reflect a majority of the governing party on the committee and adjust things accordingly.

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

I had accepted that as a friendly, Mr. Chairman.

You can check the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I understand that, but technically there is no such thing as a friendly amendment. What I had read into the record is what we have.

If you wish, Mr. Harris, you can move a subamendment to Mr. Bélanger's amendment and call the question on it.

I want to be clear about this. Otherwise, if we're not clear about what we're doing here, I've found from past meetings that people can become confused about exactly what's going on.

So if you want to move a subamendment to this, by all means go ahead. Then call the question on it.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I think Yvon wanted....

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Monsieur Godin.

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

As you know, I was not here last time when that happened.

I would just like the proposal to be read correctly so that we can understand the speaking order that is being proposed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

If you would care to move your subamendment, go ahead. Perhaps you could read all four rounds so that we're all on the same page.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Yes.

The subamendment would keep the first round at seven minutes, with NDP, Liberal, Conservative; the second round would be five minutes, NDP, Conservative, Liberal; the third round, the only one that would change, would have a speaking order of Conservative, NDP, Conservative; and then the fourth round of five minutes would be Conservative, NDP, Liberal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

So we have a subamendment, moved by Mr. Harris, to Mr. Bélanger's amendment.

Is there any debate on this?

If not, I will call the question on the subamendment....

Go ahead.

[Bernard Trottier, Conservative, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Could you repeat the sequence please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

For the first round, it would be the NDP, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party. For the second round, it would be the NDP, the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party. For the third round, it would be the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Liberal Party. For the fourth round, it would be the Conservative Party, the NDP, the Liberal Party.

Right, Mr. Godin?

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

Perhaps we could propose a subamendment. That's legal. If it's legal, why shake your head? Excuse me, but it's my right. If it's right, it's right.

Actually, I am looking at the third round, and I would agree with it. For example, in the third round, the speaking order could be: Conservatives, NDP, then Conservatives and, since the Liberals would not speak in the third round, in the fifth round, we could go back to: Conservatives, NDP, Liberals. Perhaps the order for the fifth round could be: NDP, Conservatives, Liberals. Actually, it's rare—I have never seen it before, where a party speaks twice in a row. We simply need to reverse it. This is going to be similar, but it's fair so that we don't have two in a row. In the third round, the order could be: Conservatives, NDP, Conservatives; then, it would be: NDP, Conservatives, Liberals. It's just to alternate, instead of having the same party speak twice in a row, which we don't normally do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Monsieur Godin has moved a subamendment to the subamendment moved by Mr. Harris.

Is there any debate on Monsieur Godin's proposal?

Monsieur Godin is proposing, for the first round, New Democrat, Liberal, Conservative; for the second round, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal; for the third round, Conservative, New Democrat, Conservative; and for the fourth round, New Democrat, Conservative, Liberal.

Is there any debate on this proposed amendment?

Yes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Out of a concern for fairness, can we take the time to count the number of minutes that would be given to each party to see whether it proportionally reflects the House of Commons?

I think that the Liberals would have 18 or 19% of the time, while in the House, they have 11% of the seats. The Conservatives might be the losers.

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

Personally, I have nothing against that, Mr. Gourde. We simply need to think about it. In the House of Commons, representation isn't really by the minute.

I have been sitting on the committee since 1998. As you know, I used to be entitled to close to four rounds in the debate but, in 2008, I lost one because there were too many of us. For a while, there were only 13 members, but I was still entitled to four rounds. The committee governs its own decisions, as Mr. Lauzon put so well earlier.

I think that this would be a good start for the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We are going to meet our witnesses, and I have no objection to having Mr. Bélanger ask questions. He has contributed a great deal to the official languages file. We hope that things will work as they did the last time, because the committee functioned very well. Honestly, I tip my hat to the committee because we do good work. We need to move in that direction.

We would like there to be four rounds, but there is one party less. So the discussions will go much quicker. We'll certainly gain 20 minutes because of the five minutes that the Bloc Québécois would have had in each round. The Bloc Québécois isn't here any more. So our parties will benefit from that because we'll have additional rounds. The committee is going to meet for two hours and that doesn't mean that there will be only four rounds.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

I would just like to add this. The problem is that, if we have four rounds, and we hear from witnesses for one hour, only four members of my party will be able to speak, and a fifth member will always have to sit out.

As you know, when you are an integral part of a committee and you take the time to review the files, never being able to speak is frustrating. If we sit in committee for two hours and are required to skip our turn once a week, even if there are two committee meetings in the week, it's shocking.

The positive side of this problem is that we have more members. For the members of my party, I think that at least having the opportunity to speak once every two hours is a minimum. That's why we need to find a formula that will allow all members of this side to take part in at least one five-minute round.