Official Languages Committee on June 23rd, 2011

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to pick up on one thing. Actually, I did not want Mr. Bélanger to misunderstand my....

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Mr. Galipeau on a point of order.

Mr. Galipeau?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

I've been patient as I see the ragging of the puck on the other side. We're discussing a principle right now, no matter how valid it may be. We're discussing a principle on which we've already had a vote.

We've had a vote on whether the third party should be included in the second round. Some people may not like the result, but the result is right there on the record. I don't know why we're continuing to discuss this. It's done. Frankly, I even think that this proposal is out of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

It's in order, Mr. Galipeau, but thank you for the intervention. Mr. Julian is discussing the amendment moved by Mr. Aubin in front of us, so I'm going to allow him to continue.

Through amendments and subamendments, we've had a number of different suggestions regarding the order of parties, so I've allowed the amendment. I'm going to allow Mr. Julian to speak to it, but thank you for--

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

When am I on to speak?

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

You are next on the list.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Go ahead, Mr. Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As always, you showed wisdom in dealing with a point of order. You are absolutely right. The amendment put forward by Mr. Aubin is the seventh attempt at compromise by those on this side of the table. We have had discussions, made proposals and listened carefully to the government members. And after seven tries, the government is saying it wants to reject any attempt at a compromise. That bothers us, to be sure, because the Standing Committee on Official Languages has always been a forum where partisan politics took a back seat. I have been on this committee seven years and have always felt that the concerns of my colleagues were rooted in the country's official languages principles.

First, I want to respond to Mr. Bélanger's comment. I think there was a misunderstanding. I just want to point out, through the chair, that we are talking about the strong presence of official language minorities in the country—the French-speaking minority across Canada and the English-speaking minority in Quebec. There are approximately 120 ridings today. The New Democrats represent 59 ridings in Quebec, the ridings of Acadie—Bathurst, Ottawa-Centre and, of course, northern Ontario. I need not go into the details, but the same goes for the riding of Timmins—James Bay to Sudbury, and for the ridings around Windsor, the riding of Welland and the regions of Toronto, represented by Mr. Harris.

We have a strong presence and representation in regions where language minorities live. That is why this committee is so important to the official opposition. I know it is also important to the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, but we must find some middle ground. For three meetings, a week now, we have been making proposals, and every time we have come up against a flat-out refusal to find some middle ground, to reach a compromise. That is not only sad, but also unfortunate. We truly care about official languages, about this committee and about the order of precedence. They are important to us.

With that in mind, we proposed solutions. We want to uphold certain principles. As Mr. Bélanger clearly explained, we have a principle of giving the third party an opportunity to speak in every round. We support that principle, just as we support the government side's principle of giving every member an opportunity to speak. We also feel it is important not to push the official opposition out of the debate and questioning for a half-hour. That is why we offered up a compromise. I did not ask my colleagues how they felt, but I certainly do not like being absent from the debate for 21 minutes. But we are willing to accept that because we feel that the proposal giving the government side two opportunities to speak during the first round, with seven minutes for each questioner, also adheres to an important principle, one we support.

Even under Mr. Aubin's proposal, we are absent from the debate for more than 20 minutes. During televised hearings, we are entitled to speak first and then we are missing in action for more than 20 minutes. And yet we are prepared to accept that for the sake of the committee. We have proposed several compromises. The responses from the government side are really starting to disappoint me. This could have been resolved two days ago. Mr. Bélanger made some concessions, and we did the same, of course. Mr. Aubin's proposal is not perfect, but we have agreed to be silent for 20 minutes.

This is probably not a perfect solution from the government's perspective either. Mr. Aubin already mentioned that, and I agree with him.

Frankly, we have a responsibility for official languages, and we must come to an agreement. We have 20 minutes to do it. I think we should adopt Mr. Aubin's suggestion, even though it's not quite to our liking, far from it, in fact. But I would say it is the most acceptable of the proposals. I know it isn't to Mr. Bélanger's liking either, because it gives him a lot less than what the NDP had in the previous committee, but he is willing to go along with it to reach a compromise.

Mr. Chair, we are asking the members on the government side to make a small concession as well, so that we can move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Mr. Galipeau, you have the floor.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chair, here we are for the third time, a few days having gone by between each meeting.

We all have colleagues on other committees. Some of us are also on other committees. What I proposed today is in line with what other committees have already agreed to, including the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Why are we indulging in hairsplitting? I have no idea. There is unhappiness about the amount of time between the first and second turns, giving the official opposition the impression it got a bit of a raw deal. That interval, I will admit, is the result of my amending my original proposal in order to give the official opposition the first opportunity to speak in the first round. If the official opposition grows too weary during that long interval, perhaps we can go back to the original proposal. I really do think it benefits the official opposition, however. Those members told us they preferred to speak first. But that does give rise to a long interval between speaking opportunities, as they have noted.

The proposal I put on the table today is not unusual. It has already been agreed to by a number of other House of Commons committees, including not just those I mentioned, but others as well.

If you don't mind, Mr. Chair, I would like to put the amendment to a vote, so we can settle the matter once and for all and get on with it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Galipeau.

If we're not going to come to an agreement in the next 20 minutes, I'm not sure what we're doing here.

As well, I have six speakers on the list, so if we don't come to an agreement and somebody demands a meeting under Standing Order 106(4), I will call it, obviously, as I'm bound to do by the standing orders of the House, but it is going to be a huge inconvenience to everybody. The chair will call the meeting at the chair's convenience, because I've been sitting through three of these meetings now, and I'm going to be calling it within the rules as provided by the Standing Orders. If people have to come halfway across the country or all the way across the country to get here, it will be at my convenience, because I've sat through three of these meetings and members on this committee have not yet come to an agreement on the rounds of questioning, while other committees have.

Being forewarned is being forearmed. I just want to make sure members are aware of that.

We're now going to Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

The guiding principle behind our proposal has always been fairness and respect for all of the parties and all of the members here.

I want to respond to what Mr. Bélanger said. At no time in our discussions did we decide that we were going to cut the Liberal Party out of any round. Our strategy was simply based on the fact that there are 11 members here, and every single one of those members should have an opportunity to speak. If somebody is going to be cut off because of lack of time, it will be the governing party and the opposition party, and not the third party, which has one chance to speak because they have only one member here. That was the guiding principle behind our discussions. Everybody speaks, all 11 people.

To be fair to Mr. Bélanger, since he's the only one here representing his own party, he speaks in the first round, which gives him an opportunity over a lot of the members who only get to speak for five minutes instead of seven. There was never any discussion about winning this point or losing this point. We just said we'd sit down and give everybody a chance to speak, and then we'll start over again.

I reject, Mr. Chair, any suggestion that we don't want to come to a solution or that there's an impasse or that we don't want to compromise. We are compromising. We feel that it's standard, if you will. It's common sense. It's common sense to allow everybody to speak and to allow everybody to speak once in the first two rounds, and then we repeat those rounds all over again.

We're starting, in keeping with tradition, with the opposition party asking the first question. I don't see why it has now become a question of who finishes one round and who starts the other round and that kind of stuff. We have to bear in mind what happens at the end. There's a reality here, and we can't hide that.

I listened very carefully to what Mr. Harris had to say: if it goes to four rounds, two of us get cut out. We're accepting up front that if it goes to the last three speakers, two of us are going to be cut out, not one of you. If you want to go four, five, or six, that kind of logic doesn't make sense. If we have no rounds, nobody speaks.

I think it's a good compromise. It's on the table. Everybody speaks. Everybody has an opportunity to say what they want. If we don't have enough time, we get cut off at the end more than anybody else. I don't see why you're positioning this as us being stringent. As Mr. Harris said at one point, we represent 60% of the population on this side, and you represent 40% on that side. There are two parties on that side. There's no coalition here. We haven't mentioned that word. Mr. Harris can't speak to 60%. He doesn't represent 60%.

There are 11 members here. To give everybody an equal chance to speak is fair. It's equitable. It's balanced. We can try to present and twist and turn and look at this thing left, right, and centre, Mr. Chair, and I have no problem if you call a meeting every single day from now until Christmas to resolve this thing. We're not going to be budging on a question of very strong principle, which is that we allow every member here an opportunity to speak once before we start again with the second round.

To allow somebody to speak more than once is not fair to anybody else. It's not fair to any parties. It's not fair to the parliamentary system. It's not fair to the standard business practices that I think a committee like this should employ to guide it every day and in every session we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

We'll go to Monsieur Bélanger.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to underscore a few points. We have heard that other committees have agreed to this approach, and that may very well be true. Other committees, however, have also agreed to different approaches.

I have been told that, at the Standing Committee on Health, the order in the first round is: New Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals. In the second round, the order is: New Democrats, Conservatives, New Democrats, Conservatives, New Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals. That is what one committee has adopted. The principle I am trying to maintain is that each party can speak in each round. The same thing was accepted in government operations—government orders—I'm sorry, legislative affairs. If we are looking at other committees to see which direction we should go in, we should look at them all, because there are some where this principle has been observed.

As for what Mr. Menegakis has just said, the new aspect that the government is trying to have accepted is that everyone can speak, and we accept that. Perhaps there is another way of doing things to be considered, and I know that we will have to go back to something that has already been decided. We could reduce the time allocation. If we are afraid that some opportunities to speak at the end of the meeting will be cut off, we could reduce the speaking time. So someone would have to do the math—the clerk, perhaps—to decide which round to reduce the time in. We could reduce the time in the first round from seven minutes to five, as has been done at this committee for a long time, or we could even reduce the time in the second round to four minutes. We would have to do some calculations to see what could be done. If the fear, the concern, is about the time, if we are afraid that some people would have no time to speak, another possibility would be to agree to have two options, two speaking orders with different time limits, one for one-hour meetings and another for two-hour meetings.

Once again, I can be flexible in an attempt to get the principle accepted. Let me give you an example, Mr. Chair. Perhaps you have heard of it before. I agree that it is maybe not the best example, but nonetheless, it is a real one. Let me give you the distribution of the parties in the 37 ^th Parliament. There were 173 Liberals in the majority government; there were 66 from the Reform Party making up the official opposition. There were 37 from the Bloc, 13 New Democrats and 12 Progressive Conservatives. This is the speaking order that one committee adopted: the Alliance, the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party, the New Democrats and the Progressive Conservatives. In total, the Liberals, who had seven committee members, had 12 minutes. There are six of you now and there were seven of them, including the chair. The Alliance got 12 minutes, the Bloc Québécois got 12 minutes, the New Democrats got 12 minutes and the Progressive Conservatives got 12 minutes. So each of the parties got 20%. I am giving you this example to illustrate how the majority went about safeguarding other principles, such as giving each party the chance to speak, and such as an acceptance by the government party that, in a committee, opposition parties had a different role from theirs. I go back to what I said in the debate today: one of the fundamental roles of Parliament is to ensure that the government is held accountable for its actions and its decisions. That is also the case in the committees.

Gentlemen, as you deliberate, and as you dig in your heels to insist that you want one way and no other way, consider how things have been done in the past. This committee has evolved. I could tell you about the same committee in the 38 ^thParliament. Yes, things have evolved and the percentages for the governing party have increased. But they have never equalled the percentages for all the opposition parties combined—never. That is what is being proposed at the moment.

Perhaps it is not deliberate, I am making no accusations. But what you are doing could lead to the erosion of some of the fundamental principles of Parliament. It is dangerous.

Precedents are created, perhaps by accident, perhaps by design, I do not know. We have to be careful about that. I have given one example, and I am going to repeat it so that I am sure you understood.

When our party had a majority, it had seven members, just like the Conservatives today. All opposition parties could speak, even those with only 12 or 13 members. They were given the same amount of time. The second round was similar to the first, as I was saying just now. All parties had a right to speak in the fourth and fifth rounds. I am not talking about the third round. I can give you a copy of it, if you like; these are all facts.

I hope that Mr. Gourde is listening because he has a role to play as a representative of the government that has to make sure that both chambers and their committees operate properly. I agree with Mr. Julian, who recognized that the government party and the third party have duly elected representatives in regions with official language minority communities. He talked about the need to recognize and to respect certain principles, and the request for everyone to be able to speak has been accepted. I will come back to that question.

I feel it is a question that must be asked. Perhaps we should ask Mr. Gourde, or all members individually. Since you are insisting that each member of the governing party be able to speak, for that is what you are doing, would you be interested in adding another mechanism that would allow each member of the committee to speak? You will be protected. When the time comes to count heads, the parliamentary secretary would probably be the one to speak, unless you agreed otherwise. But after that, it would have to be required for the other members, like Mr. Weston, Mr. Lauzon and Mr. Galipeau to have the chance to speak. We are not talking about that; we are just talking about the governing party.

If you want to take the principle you are suggesting to its conclusion, you would have to include a rule stipulating that every member will speak. Unless, as Mr. Harris was saying just now, we do not want to lose the right to give up our right to speak. We have to give that right, so that Mr. Lauzon has to give up his right to speak so that Mr. Gourde can speak for a second time. Then Mr. Weston would give up his right to speak so that Mr. Gourde can speak for a third time.

If you take the principle you are suggesting to its logical conclusion, it would have to be written into the committee rules. I am going to think about it because we will have the time to include a rule like that, perhaps not before the end of this meeting, but at the next one. If we want your principle to be observed, we will have to make sure that it is done in the right way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I am an expert at summer meetings.

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

You are indeed, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

When I was chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, I believe I called about 12 meetings in July.

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

Yes, I went to two of your meetings, I spent a whole day there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Who said the meeting would be during the day? It could be at night.

I am joking.

Your turn, Ms. Michaud.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I find it interesting that we are giving so much importance to the principle that each person must speak and that we are defending it to this extent. I actually share Mr. Bélanger's concerns that we may ask for it as a principle but not really apply it. That is an interesting possibility to consider. You never know.

I also find it quite relevant to indicate what other committees have done and how they have decided to operate. It is up to us as a group to establish our own operating rules, ones we feel comfortable with and that allow us to work better as a team. Previous traditions and ways of working at this committee, in my opinion, were principles that helped to establish more respect, more openness and more collegiality. At the moment, there is an attitude of resistance. It seems a lot like partisanship, which is not really necessary when we are dealing with a subject like official languages. It seems that, in the view of my opponents, my position is not particularly relevant. But I am still going to continue.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Michaud is making a very interesting presentation, not to say an impressive one. But I find that my colleagues opposite are not giving her the respect she deserves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Just make sure that whatever conversations are going on are below audible levels.

Ms. Michaud, you have the floor.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We saw people asking for attention earlier. I am asking them to show me the same respect. Mine is the only female perspective that you can get here.

As I was saying, the subject of official languages goes beyond partisan concerns. We all have a stake in helping official language minority communities expand and develop. We should work towards that and take concrete action. The presentation before us really involves all parties. I think that we should rally to its support. We are all ready to accept some things we do not like. The other side of the table should do the same.

Thank you for your attention. I really appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you, Madam Michaud.

We have one minute left in this committee, so we're either going to call these votes if debate has collapsed, or we're going to continue to debate.

The next speaker is Mr. Julian. Before I give the floor to Mr. Julian, I will just put it to members of committee that we have one minute left. We could conduct and conclude this meeting in two votes, or we could continue debate. I just wanted to be clear about that.

On a point of order, go ahead, Mr. Galipeau.