Evidence of meeting #4 for Official Languages in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
All those in favour of adjourning debate on this motion by Monsieur Godin?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
If adopted, the motion by Monsieur Godin is that we would adjourn debate on this motion of Monsieur Galipeau.
Conservative
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
It's not the cheeky guy with no hair; it's the cheeky guy with lots of hair.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Okay. I'll give the floor to the clerk to call for the recorded division.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Godin's motion is carried.
Yes, Mr. Bélanger?
September 22nd, 2011 / 9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
May I ask the clerk to distribute a copy of the report to all members who would like one?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Sure. I'll instruct the clerk to do so.
As stated before, if you give me at least 24 hours' notice so I can put it on the orders of the day, that will help everybody in their planning.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Yes. My motion reads:
That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages study the tabling of documents regarding Afghanistan in the House of Commons on June 22, 2011, hear witness testimony and report to the House by October 13, 2011.
It says October 13, but given the current situation, perhaps we could postpone it for a few weeks and adopt an amendment later.
Can we make the change right away, Mr. Chair? It was October 13, but could we postpone it to October 27?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Michael Chong
Mr. Godin proposed an amendment to his motion after reading it. Do any committee members want to discuss it?
Mr. Godin, you have the floor.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
When documents need to be tabled in committee, we ask that they be provided in both languages, out of respect for both official languages.
After all the work that has been done to table this report before the House of Commons, it makes no sense that it can't be ready by Canadians in both official languages. Importance was put on the fact that members of the House had no choice but to agree to receive this report. That's incorrect. We should be able to study this to find out what happened. Why wasn't the report translated as the work was being done on it, so that both of Canada's official languages could be respected?
So I ask you, dear colleagues, to support this. We need to know what happened and report back to the House. I'm telling you now, I will be disappointed if you vote against this because it is going to show whether we support both official languages in our country. We cannot start producing reports and doing work to present to the House of Commons without respecting both official languages.
We talked about that back in June, before we left. Everyone knows what happened. It's unacceptable. I am asking for your support so that we can study it.
Conservative
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
I am going to support the resolution, but I want to make a clarification. I might commit a crime by saying this, but here we go anyway.
I can imagine that there are cases where it might not be impossible, but not very practical, to translate everything. That might be the case here. I was told that there were 40,000 pages, for example.
I'm not so pompous as to say that absolutely everything must be translated. But I was in the House when the report was tabled, and I was shocked at how it was done. We were caught a little of guard and were told that if we didn't obtain unanimous consent, we couldn't table the document. That's no way of proceeding. There should have been a consultation beforehand or advice sought from all the parties and members—the independents as well—to ensure that there was consent. It's a very important issue. Canadians and the House were waiting for this report.
There was no objection to the tabling of these documents because of the importance of the issue. But we must understand how this type of thing can happen, so that it doesn't happen again. I'm not saying that everything must always be translated. There might be exceptions in some cases, and I may have approved such cases in the past. This may be a similar case, but we'll see.
The fact that we weren't informed is unacceptable. That's why I'm going to support my colleague's motion, so that we can find out how this happened and why the government gave authorization to table a document that went against the standing orders of the House. I agree that the government sought unanimous consent, but it didn't try to obtain it first and inform others. That isn't right and we should avoid this type of thing in the future.
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Chair, I am going to vote against this motion. Yes, there was unanimous consent to table the documents, and the members of Parliament studied this 40,000-page report. The four parties agreed that they had to proceed quickly. The opposition asked that it be tabled quickly and that it be studied as quickly as possible. All the parties agreed, including the Bloc Québécois, which was an official party at the time, to accept the tabling of the documents.
Most of the documents were in English, but there were some in French as well, and the members of the four opposition parties present accepted that.
So, the government party is going to respect the choice made by the members of the four parties of Parliament at the time.
NDP
Élaine Michaud NDP Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
The parties present certainly didn't choose to prevent some of their members from working with certain documents. As you know, there are individuals in each party who are unilingual and speak only one official language. I think that some conservatives have trouble reading documents in English, and others who have trouble reading them in French. It's a crucial issue that Canadians asked the members to look into. We all want answers.
No one agreed to the tabling of documents in this way. I think that we really have to ask ourselves this question. The 40,000 pages wouldn't have been translated in one day. The study took place over a long period of time. I think that it's possible to gradually send a certain number of pages at a time. There would have been a way of doing it. It's important that the committee members look into the situation. It's beyond partisanship. It's really a failure to comply with the Official Languages Act. It's even a question of parliamentarians being able to do their job properly as a result of this untranslated document.
The committee needs to look at how Parliament works. I would not like this to become the norm when future documents are tabled. I think that the committee members should work together as responsible colleagues.
Conservative
NDP
Dan Harris NDP Scarborough Southwest, ON
I just want to continue the discussion. It's how the documents were studied. More than a year passed before they were tabled in the House. Why were they not translated at the time? One of the committee's responsibilities is to ask these kinds of questions so that we can improve the situation for the next time. So we are presenting an amendment or a motion so that we can really ask questions in order to make it better next time, and that's all.
NDP
Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC
Maybe I'm extrapolating. But I think we must all agree that this situation should not have happened, even though it did.
It seems far more important to me to understand the how and the why of the situation. Then it would be easier for me to pardon a mistake, if a mistake was made in the process, and to find solutions for future situations, than to skip over that and send the message that our Official Languages Act is important on paper, but that in practice, we can get around it without much difficulty.
So I'm obviously going to vote in favour of Mr. Godin's motion.
Conservative
Conservative
Royal Galipeau Conservative Ottawa—Orléans, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The entire issue of official languages in Canada is very serious, very important and very relevant. We must always comply with this act, which has been in place since 1969. Occasionally it is the subject of controversy, but it must always be defended.
But there are times when we raise an alarm when there is no need to and we harm the overall cause. At some point, if there really is a problem, no one will believe us when we cry for help. In this situation, I think that those people who were ringing the alarm bell were just trying to attract attention in a calculated way.
This study was done by members of all parties except, I think, the party that is now the official opposition. The official opposition party, which was a fourth party at the time, refused to take part.
The Liberal Party was involved, and its participant, the honourable Stéphane Dion, was one of the biggest defenders of official languages. The Bloc Québécois, which never kowtows when it comes to the French language, was there as well. The report tabled in the House was bilingual. The notes in the appendix, written by military members in the field in Afghanistan, were published in the language they were written in. The House gave its unanimous consent during the 40th Parliament. That's what it did.
The 40th Parliament is over. I voted against the dissolution of the 40th Parliament. I wasn't the turkey who voted for an early Christmas.
We are now in the 41st Parliament, and we need to get to work in this committee to defend official languages and stop our witch hunt.
I do not intend to support the motion.
Thank you.