Excuse me—
Evidence of meeting #34 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cuts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #34 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cuts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chairman, I only received the amendment this morning. I also worked on the first motion that we received, which referred to the "Official Languages Support Fund". I have checked, and this fund does not exist. Even though we can see what is involved in it, the fact remains that the fund does not exist. If the first motion does not exist, why make an amendment to a non-existent motion? I think that the amendment that has just been made becomes a motion on its own. We are entitled to 48 hours notice. They can come back in 48 hours.
10:50 a.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
The purpose of the motion is exactly the same. We are not even adding any details, but simply extending the motion so that it is more precise, because it refers to an element that does not exist. The change does not really destroy the motion and does not make it invalid. It simply broadens the framework in which it applies. I therefore do not see why we would want to eliminate it.
We checked with the people involved and in our view, there is no reason to say that the motion was not presented. If we had moved different objectives, then I would agree that it should be eliminated, but this is not the case here.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to you. The first motion that we received reads as follows:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on Official Languages recommend that the government increase the Official Languages Support Fund from $24 million annually to $42 million annually and ensure stable funding for organizations affected by this funding in order to support the vitality of francophone communities outside Quebec in the short-, medium- and long-term and that the Chair of the Committee report the adoption of this motion to the House of Commons as soon as possible.
It's the substance of the motion. The "Fund" does not exist. It's a bottomless pit. Then, a second motion was made, and I am beginning to understand. But the first motion is not substantive. I'm sorry, but you cannot amend a motion that is not substantive. That's the rule.
10:50 a.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
It's not that the motion is not substantive, it is that the "Fund" does not exist. The motion nevertheless exists. I can't understand how a lawyer could say such things. That makes fun of people.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
The Official Languages Support Fund, which was to be increased from $24 million to $42 million, does not exist. I'm sorry, but it does not exist. There is no purpose served by creating it.
10:50 a.m.
Bloc
Paule Brunelle Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
There are two parts to the motion, hence the semicolon. It is already there in the first motion, and virtually the same terms are used. Indeed, I will read it and I quote: "...and ensure stable funding for organizations affected by this funding in order to support the vitality of francophone communities outside Quebec...". The whole of the second part, after the semicolon, concerns the same thing. The amendment is only a few lines, like the previous motion that was adopted with an amendment of a few lines. The basic meaning is not change. I cannot see why it should be withdrawn.
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, the first motion is the main motion, and I would suggest that the second paragraph constitutes an amendment to the main motion. I consider the main motion to be expressed in the following words: “...and ensure stable funding for organizations affected by this funding in order to support the vitality of francophone communities outside Quebec...”. Let us consider the first motion. You are saying that an amendment is being made, and I quote: “following its obligations to support the development of Official Languages Communities, the government increased its overall funding to the Cooperation with the Community Sector component of the Canadian Heritage Official Languages Support Programs.”
The amendment is admissible because one has the right to present an amendment to the motion. You can't just read the first three lines of a motion and say that it is the main motion. A main motion is the whole thing and the amendment is what comes afterwards. It is up to the committee to decide whether it agrees to adopt the amendment.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask our researcher whether a similar motion was introduced last year.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
The francophone communities were attempting to obtain additional funds. It seems to me that they were getting $19 million and that they wanted to increase this amount to $42 million. A motion to this effect had been prepared. I do not know whether it would be possible to find it. I prefer the first to the second. If you are going to introduce something, then I find the second very vague. The whole thing could be increased by a million dollars and then people could say that they had done their work, but I would like to communicate with the communities to check whether indeed they want to have $42 million. After that, then a motion to this effect could be introduced, or the motion that had been introduced last year could be reintroduced.
10:55 a.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
The problem is with the numbers—and that is why we are taking them out—the same persons who gave them were unable to explain to us clearly where they came from. It was compilation of several factors. It certainly means that the amount should increase. When we speak specifically of $42 million, it is a request, but in relation to what? It's a bit nebulous. We were unable to get an answer. That is why, with their support, we introduced a motion like this one. For your information, we are also removing the “Official Languages Support Fund”, which does not exist.
