Official Languages Committee on April 5th, 2012

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I understand your desire to add flexibility there, but I think that “before the summer” is important.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I think my amendment speaks to the willingness to bring him here. I believe he wants to come, and it will probably be done before the summer. I want to leave my amendment as is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

I would like to move a subamendment, Mr. Chair.

I suggest that the meeting last two hours. I move that the minister's appearance—on a date of his choosing—last two hours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay.

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

He is taking it out and I want to put it back in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. We now have a subamendment to the amendment. The subamendment that's live on the floor right now would include “two-hour” in the amendment moved by Mr. Menegakis.

We're on the subamendment. Is there any discussion on the subamendment?

Monsieur Godin.

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

Really, I am having trouble accepting that. I don't mind that we are moving this from May 18 to 30, but to say that he can come when he feels like it...

We are already giving him a period of time over the next few weeks. Are official languages important for the government or not? Why can he not take two hours to appear before the Standing Committee on Official Languages? Where is the problem? This government has trumpeted far and wide that it is acting for the good of official languages. Why does he not come to trumpet it before our committee? Let him make his presentation and give us the opportunity... As I stated earlier, we have spent six months considering the roadmap. We want the minister to be accountable for official languages within his department.

First, it is not unusual to have a minister appear for two hours.

Second, we are setting a deadline but we are not telling him he has to be here next week. We know he is busy and it seems to me that giving him until the end of May is reasonable. When he does become available by May 18, then we will give him all the time needed, we will give him the morning. But we cannot say that he can come when he wants, for no more than an hour, and that we are sure he will come before the end of June. That is not how these things work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Lapointe, you have the floor.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I am surprised by Mr. Menegakis' amendment. Maybe there is something that I have not yet grasped. Does ministerial accountability still exist? Does that include ministers coming before standing committees? Does that involve a standing committee being able to suggest an appropriate time period, depending on the study at hand, to have an opportunity to exchange views with the minister? This is all being disregarded and we are saying that the minister can come whenever he wants to, for however long he wants to, and maybe he will come, but maybe not, we will see. Where is ministerial accountability in all that? When does it happen? If it has disappeared, then why are we here? This is a fundamental question. I am concerned by the lack of parameters.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Thank you.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

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

Mr. Menegakis' amendment is that the minister will come, but in a way that is respectful of the minister. We know that our ministers have very little time and they have very busy schedules. Perhaps the NDP members have never experienced what the life of a minister can be like, but Mr. Bélanger has. A minister may be available, but he may not be.

I think that we must invite the minister. If we are not satisfied with his response, then you can always table another amendment, another motion. Our side, under Mr. Menegakis' amendment, is inviting the minister to come at his convenience. Once we have a response, we can always have a discussion, but if the response is positive, if the date works for us and if he appears for an appropriate length of time, then this discussion will have been for nothing. That would be logical. That is what I wanted to say. If we abide by tradition and if we respect the minister, then the amendment is acceptable.

On the other hand, I think it is unacceptable to try and restrict things with the subamendment. We will vote in favour of the amendment. We will vote in favour of the motion as amended. We are ready to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

On Mr. Bélanger's subamendment, there are two minutes remaining.

Mr. Harris.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Can we call the question, Mr. Chair?

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Ironically—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

There's a point of order.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Well, the person who has the floor—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

Okay. Just one moment.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

—has the ability to call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

I have a point of order from Mr. Weston.

Go ahead, Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I was asking if we could call the question. I'm just afraid—

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

We can't if there's further debate, and I understand there's further debate.

Mr. Harris.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Well, it's the person who has the floor who can call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Michael Chong]

No.

[Dan Harris, NDP, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No?