Official Languages Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I appreciate your comment, but the process is in motion.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I raised a point of order, Mr. Chair, because we are on debate, while the green book referred to earlier clearly states that when a chair’s decision is challenged, we proceed immediately to a vote.

I therefore request the vote, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That is the case, except when points of order are raised regarding the process. I will therefore hear them, as the chair.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

It seems to me that the basic rule in democracy is that the majority rules. You declared the motion out of order and we did not agree, because we had a different interpretation. No one has a lock on the absolute truth. We therefore voted to overturn your ruling and, as it turns out, you’re still saying that it’s out of order, even though the majority voted against your ruling. On a democratic level, we can call that into question.

I think the majority rules, even when the result of the vote is not to our liking. We can’t just agree only when it suits us. That’s not how works.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Unfortunately for Mr. Beaulieu, on the subject of the majority, our Constitution protects the francophone minority.

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

Except in Quebec.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

We are referring to the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, our green book, but we’re breaching it at the same time. I find that ironic.

We can now move on to the vote and respect the process, but I find it ironic to refer to the green book while breaching it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Very well.

Before moving on to the vote, I will remind you of what we are voting on. It is on the amendment proposed by Mr. Serré regarding Mr. Beaulieu’s motion. The motion, as amended by the amendment, would read as follows:

Given the obscene and offensive comments made by the Liberal MP for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to a witness defending the cause of the French language and Québec, the committee asks the Chair, on behalf of the committee, to apologize in writing to the witnesses Frédéric Lacroix and Nicolas Bourdon, regarding the events that took place on May 6.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.

If I understand correctly, every amendment submitted to us that the opposition doesn’t like will be considered out of order because we are a minority. We’re not even being given the chance to debate the proposed amendment because the opposition only wants its own amendment. I really don’t understand it. What is happening again this morning is not acceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, I give you the floor.

When you are finished, I will suspend sitting for a moment to consult the committee’s assigned personnel.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

I just wanted to say that it’s not a point of order, as you often say in similar cases, and I respect your decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will suspend the meeting for a moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We will now resume the sitting.

Mr. Godin, you asked me to rule on an amendment’s admissibility. I did so. You asked to vote on whether to uphold the chair’s ruling. We will now do so, but I will first explain to you the reasons why I’ve come to this conclusion.

I am referring to page 541 of our famous green book, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, 2017.

I’m referring to an amendment because that is indeed what is at issue. All right? In the quoted text, it refers to the House of Commons, but committees follow the same procedure.

An amendment should be so framed that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and internally consistent. An amendment is out of order, procedurally, if: it is irrelevant to the main motion (i.e., it deals with a matter foreign to the main motion, exceeds its scope, or introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantial motion with notice); it raises a question substantially the same as one which the House has decided in the same session or conflicts with an amendment already agreed to; it is completely contrary to the main motion and would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion;…

That is what guides us when presiding over a committee meeting dealing with an amendment’s admissibility.

I therefore repeat that the amendment moved by Mr. Serré to amend Mr. Beaulieu’s motion is in order. The vote was requested. I will not backtrack any further. We are moving on to the vote.

Madam Clerk, you have the floor.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Audrée Dallaire]

We are now voting on the following question: “Is the Chair’s ruling sustained?”

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused about the voting process and the impact of voting yes or no.

Mr. Chair, could you explain this to me?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Iacono, at Mr. Godin's request, I ruled on whether Mr. Serré's amendment is in order. We aren't discussing Mr. Beaulieu's motion. I ruled that Mr. Serré's amendment is in order, for the reasons that I just explained.

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay. Thank you.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

The ruling is in dispute.

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

[Joël Godin, Conservative, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

We can't see the picture in ParlVU. Can this situation be resolved?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'm told that the audio works, but that they're trying to fix the picture issue.

We'll suspend the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We'll resume the meeting.

I'm learning at about the same time as you that it apparently isn't unusual to hold public meetings where only the audio is available. I'm told that, in any case, some meeting rooms don't have cameras. This isn't unusual. It's a technical issue that we're trying to resolve this morning. It may be resolved while we hold our meeting. Until then, only the audio will be available.

Remember that the chair's ruling on the admissibility of Mr. Serré's amendment was overturned. Most of the committee considered the amendment out of order and voted accordingly.

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I already said, I'm disappointed that there isn't any video recording. I dare you to watch a television program without video. That would be radio, which isn't the same thing at all. I object to this situation.

I would like to move another amendment, which I believe could help move the matter forward and improve Mr. Beaulieu's motion. I think that it's being passed around.

Have you received it?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No. I haven't received it yet.