Official Languages Committee on May 23rd, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are starting the public part of our meeting.

From the outset, I want to tell you that a minor correction must be made to the amendment Mr. Serré proposed for Mr. Beaulieu’s motion during the last meeting. In the text of the amendment, a witness is referred to by the name of “Gabriel Bourdon,” but his first name is actually Nicolas.

Mr. Beaulieu, I see you raised your hand; you have the floor.

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

Basically, we are continuing debate on the motion discussed during the last meeting. Did I understand correctly, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

When we adjourn with no conditions, the motions belong to the entire committee. Lately, there’ve been several motions: one during the 99th meeting, and Mr. Généreux adjourned the debate on it. One was debated on Monday, and we adjourned the debate on it.

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

I move that the committee continue discussing the motion it was dealing with during the last meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Very well.

Since no debate is possible, we will move on to the vote.

Mr. Beaulieu moves that we resume exactly where we left things during the last meeting, which was requested pursuant to Standing Order 106(4).

Mr. Godin, you have the floor for a point of order.

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

Actually, it is not a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I just want to make sure I’m understanding correctly. To be clear, we want the committee to discuss Mr. Serré’s motion. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That’s right.

Since everything is clear, we will vote on Mr. Beaulieu’s motion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0. [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We are therefore coming back to the amendment moved by Mr. Serré last Monday evening.

I now give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu, who will be followed by Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, I don’t agree with the amendment. In my opinion, it’s not the chair of the committee who should apologize, but the member. I think it distorts the meaning of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Did you want to add something?

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

Basically, we’re now getting bogged down in a debate because of filibustering. Indeed, the Liberal members absolutely do not want the majority to vote. That said, the majority will vote.

What we are asking is that the member resign from the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie.

Both parts of the motion aren’t in the amendment, which distorts the meaning of the motion. I think it’s not up to the committee to apologize through its chair; rather, it’s up to the member who used offensive language regarding the witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You understand that I cannot agree with Mr. Serré’s amendment because it completely changes the meaning of the initial motion.

It’s also important to understand that as a member of the committee, I personally do not have to apologize. I will not ask my chair to apologize on behalf of all members of the committee.

Furthermore, I think this amendment is not in order, because it is far from the main idea behind the motion. I ask you to think about it and analyze the situation.

Before continuing the debate, I ask you to rule on the amendment’s admissibility, because we’re going to waste our time.

I think we have to speed up the debate. On the opposition parties’ side, we want to move proceedings forward. We want to move on to something else in the interests of official language minority communities. We have a lot of files to discuss. On our side, we did not spend two and a half meetings filibustering. We want to move on to a vote as quickly as possible to resolve the situation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

You are putting me in a somewhat awkward situation. You’re asking me to rule on the motion’s admissibility. However, I already ruled that the motion as such was out of order. It’s written in black and white that neither this committee, nor even the chair, who has a great deal of leeway and a lot of flexibility within a committee, can reprimand, sanction or censure a member of the committee. That happens elsewhere than at this committee.

I already ruled that the motion was out of order. By majority vote, the committee opposed the chair’s decision. I do not feel targeted. It’s clearly written in the Standing Orders. It’s not a lack of trust in the chair.

You’re asking me to rule on the motion’s admissibility. As the chair—I repeat, as the chair—I will explain my understanding of this amendment to you.

In a certain sense, this amendment “softens” the motion to put it in order. If you ask me whether the amendment is in order, I will say that it is entirely in order, because it incorporates or transforms the motion’s intention in such a way that it becomes admissible as per the committee’s procedural rules. If you ask me to decide on the motion’s admissibility, I will tell you that it is entirely in order, for the reasons I just explained.

Mr. Godin, I see you raised your hand again. You have the floor.

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

Mr. Chair, you are reversing the committee’s decision. You said that the initial motion was out of order. The committee decided that it was in order. As of now, it is.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a moment, Mr. Godin.

The chair’s decision was challenged. That does not put the initial motion in order. It remains out of order, but because the chair’s ruling was challenged, we will continue to debate it. As per our procedural rules, the rules for committees, the motion is out of order for the reasons I will not repeat again.

You asked me to rule on the amendment’s admissibility. That is what I explained to you.

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

Actually, Mr. Chair, if you decide that this amendment is in order, I request a vote to challenge your decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

If you request a vote, there’s no discussion. I just want to make sure that everyone understands—

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

I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.

There are people who want to speak and their names are on the list. A vote cannot be requested when there are still names on the list to discuss the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

According to the rules of procedure, because the chair’s decision is being challenged, we must immediately proceed to a vote.

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

For our information, Mr. Chair, of what use is the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, our green Bible, to us? Procedure exists, but it’s chaos. What good comes of having this green book if the chair’s decisions are constantly being challenged?

We have rules to follow, and the opposition is systematically breaching the rules for its own ends. That’s what’s going on.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I cannot judge what you said. All I can tell you is that our book of procedure allows for challenging the chair’s decision on an amendment’s admissibility, and that process is now in motion. I am not telling you whether I like or dislike it. I’m telling you that the process is now in motion. We now have to vote on my decision regarding the amendment’s admissibility.

At the same time, I want to point out to members of the committee that, when contesting the admissibility of an amendment from the jump, before even debating it, we are starting down a slippery slope. I’m not saying it’s antidemocratic, but it’s close. That is just my opinion as chair. We can propose amendments, debate them and see where that leads us, but I find it somewhat dangerous to challenge the admissibility of an amendment before we’ve even debated it.

That said, a vote was requested.

Is the chair’s ruling sustained?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.

You made a decision regarding the original motion’s admissibility. Since our government is a minority, we will lose every one of these votes, that’s certain.

We submitted an amendment to put the motion in order, as per the green book and the rules regarding what the committee has a right to do, and they already want to declare it out of order—

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

I raise a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

—when we haven’t even debated it. They want to vote to overturn your decision, when you clearly explained that this amendment puts the motion in order and in line with the committee’s mandate. It does not have the power to instruct the Chief Government Whip. What is happening today is really not acceptable.