Official Languages Committee on Oct. 13th, 2020

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Actually, Mr. Généreux said exactly what I was going to say. I'm in favour of the status quo. As a long-standing committee member, I can tell you that the way we've done things has always worked well. Ten minutes may seem like a lot of time, but language issues are often complicated, involving the Constitution or the Official Languages Act. Ten minutes isn't that much time. In fact, we usually have to cut witnesses off at the 10-minute mark.

I agree with Mr. Généreux. I like how we've done things since 2015, so I support the status quo.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Very good. Thank you.

Ms. Lattanzio, you may go ahead.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I understand it, the idea is to give witnesses less time for their opening statements to push the other two parties to the middle of the second round.

As the member mentioned initially, we always need to ensure that every party gets an opportunity to speak. I agree with the members who spoke right before me, including Mr. Généreux. Having been on the committee during the last session of Parliament, I, too, can attest to the fact that everything worked as it should.

For those reasons, I'm going to have to vote against the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio.

Mr. Beaulieu, go ahead.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I just wanted to point out that keeping the first slot to five minutes doesn't prevent the other members from speaking again. What it does do, though, is ensure all members have a greater opportunity to speak. In the last session, we often lost our speaking time when time was running out.

That's the idea behind the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Mr. Duguid, the floor is yours.

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, one reason I put your name forward in nomination was that you are a very fair-minded individual. You are a very able chair. I think you can use your discretion, as Ms. Lambropoulos mentioned. I think she has made a persuasive argument. I would like to join her in support of that approach to use the chair's discretion. Everyone will get a chance to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

We've heard from the various members.

We have a motion that…

Just a moment, I see that Ms. Vohl would like to say something.

[Nancy Vohl]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My apologies for jumping in. I wouldn't do this at an in-person meeting, but since we haven't yet had a chance to discuss how to communicate during a virtual sitting, I wanted to bring something to your attention.

Regarding the part of the motion that calls for witnesses to provide their briefs 72 hours ahead of time, I just have a reminder for committee members. As the clerk, I can tell you it's certainly a measure the committee can adopt, but it isn't necessarily feasible or sure to happen every time. It depends on the situation, the committee and the witness. A witness could be invited to appear or a new witness could be added to the list less than 72 hours before the meeting. Also, certain witnesses may not have the ability to put together their notes 72 hours ahead of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

All right. Thank you for that comment.

In light of that, Mr. Beaulieu, would you like to put forward another motion or can we proceed with adopting the original motion?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I actually moved an amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Yes, that's right. It was an amendment.

As we've just heard, the 72-hour time frame is problematic. It's something to think about.

Mrs. Lalonde, you may go ahead.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would just like to have the clerk, Ms. Vohl, clarify something.

My understanding is that, in these exceptional circumstances, the part of Mr. Beaulieu's amendment that calls for witnesses to provide their statements 72 hours ahead of time would be very difficult to adhere to and could be a hindrance for witnesses.

Do I understand the clerk's comment correctly?

[Nancy Vohl]

Mr. Chair, with your permission, I can provide some clarity on that.

It's no problem to adopt the amendment, but it may be advisable to add something to the effect of “where practicable” to the sentence or, at the very least, to bear in mind that it will apply when it's possible. In cases where witnesses are asked to appear less than 72 hours ahead of time, they obviously can't provide their briefs before they were even invited.

I'm not saying the committee can't include the part in question; I just wanted to bring the consideration to members' attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Ashton, please go ahead.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

On the matter of the 72 hours, it's very important that we be flexible. We recognize that many organizations are going through a difficult time right now, so it's not realistic to expect that they always be able to provide their statements three days ahead of time. We want to be able to hear from them, after all.

My thinking was the same as Mr. Beaulieu's regarding the five minutes. I think a lot can be said in five minutes. As members, we're used to saying things in five minutes, or even 35 seconds, as we do during oral question period. We may not be as clear as we should, but that's for us to determine.

Allocating five minutes gives people time while giving us a chance to do our jobs properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you.

Mr. Beaulieu, it's over to you.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I just wanted to point out that my amendment clearly states “that, where possible, witnesses provide their opening statement to the committee 72 hours ahead of time”. Naturally, if we made it a requirement, there are people we wouldn't be able to hear from.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

All right.

Mr. Généreux, the floor is yours.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I would like to say quickly that there are interesting elements in both proposals.

I think everyone wants to work collaboratively. It's been one of the characteristics of this committee from the beginning.

I would propose an amendment to Mr. Beaulieu's proposal. I'd like to make sure I fully understand.

You told me that the way we used to operate, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP only had two and a half minutes. I'm surprised, because I thought we all always had at least five minutes of speaking time.

In any case, I agree with everyone that there needs to be more flexibility regarding the 72-hour period.

I could have been open to the Bloc Québécois and the NDP having five minutes to speak and ask questions.

This is the five minutes we're talking about, isn't it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Mr. Beaulieu, I'm listening.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

That's right. At the outset, the amendment proposes that witnesses be given five minutes. It also states that, to the extent possible—

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

This is in order to add time at the end. Is that what you're saying?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Yes, that's right. It gives everyone more time to speak or to speak again.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Certainly, I think it's important to keep the 10 minutes at the start for the witnesses.