No.
Evidence of meeting #106 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #106 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Okay, I might have misunderstood.
Was it in this committee or other committees?
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
In that case, the point of order would have been admissible if proposed in this committee.
I think this procedure was previously used, not so long ago. I'm talking about when a motion is substantively similar to another. I understood that it had been proposed both here and in other committees. I am less interested in the other committees, but it would be another matter if it had been done here. Since that's not the case, a point of order is inadmissible.
Thank you. It was legitimate, but since no similar motion was presented here in this committee, it doesn't work.
Mr. Godin, you have the floor.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
You're saying that his point of order is admissible. I don't think it is, but it's a matter of interpretation.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Since we are talking about it, there really is a standing order that may require the chair's decision when a similar motion has already been proposed.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Yes, if it had been done here. However, in his point of order, I thought the reference was to a motion proposed here which had also been proposed in other committees. That's what I understood, but that wasn't the case.
Please continue.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I understand, Mr. Chair. I respect your decision. I know that you're a legal expert.
I think it's important to keep the population informed of the fact that there is systematic obstruction on the part of the Liberals to prevent a vote on the motion that has been moved.
I believe that as parliamentarians, the least we can do is respect the vote. Last week, there was a vote to…. I'm going to digress and return to another exemption that was accepted.
Last week, we agreed to vote on something that would allow the committee to make progress with respect to post-secondary education so that our analyst could work during the summer.
We believe, based on our values, principles and convictions, that there shouldn't be an interruption for as long as this MP sits around the table. He does not, in our opinion, possess the legitimacy needed to sit on this committee. On that basis, I think it's important to comply with our principles and our values.
The three opposition parties—all three of them—agree. We respect this person, but not what he did. We don't believe that his excuses are acceptable, given the form they took, his actions, and in particular, based on my interpretation of what happened, his beliefs and the insincerity of his apologies.
That's as far as I'll go; It's my opinion, and I had to say so. Nevertheless, I don't think we should pursue an interruption. We did so for the Commissioner of Official Languages.
Did you want to say something?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Since you've been talking about it, when you mention the word “interruption”, I don't know if you are alluding to the fact that the committee agreed, first of all, to hold a meeting of the subcommittee in the first hour, and secondly to receive—at least that's what I understood as chair—the Canadian Heritage officials to complete Mr. Beaulieu's study. That was why we digressed from the main topic, or interrupted, as you put it. Let's call it a digression for those who are listening and following the proceedings.
Without this digression, I have to confirm—and everyone around the table is aware of this—that the floor is Mr. Drouin's. When we adjourned last Monday, we said that Mr. Drouin would have the floor at the next meeting. I'm not sure whether it was Mr. Godin or Mr. Serré. It's not important for the time being. We launched this digression, and at some point I have to rule on it. I don't know where we're headed with all this, but I'm with you.
But today's meeting is, at the committee's request, with the officials to complete Mr. Beaulieu's study before the end of the June session. This meeting is to complete the study.
But then we began this digression. When I say “we”, I mean the committee, Mr. Godin. I understand, and I'll allow you to continue. However, at some point I'm going to have to reach a decision on what is going to happen next Monday when we resume the meeting. By opening this digression, we have set aside a debate on a motion that was in progress. The entire committee is well aware of this.
I'm going to allow you to continue with your motion. I'm listening, but remember that we are right now dealing with a motion during a digression we began by adjourning a debate which we had decided to resume at the next meeting.
That's why, at the committee's request, we had the Canadian Heritage officials come here today. You decided, and you are entitled to do so, to move a motion. Do the math. At some point, the chair is going to have to rule with respect to how we adjourned last Monday, meaning to pick up the debate where we had left off. People who were on the list were stopped from speaking, beginning with Mr. Drouin, in order to do what we are doing today.
So I'll let you continue with your motion.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, you have indeed summarized the situation very well, but what I want to say is that we digressed for the official languages commissioner.
We respect democratic parliamentary institutions. It's a House of Commons officer, and I think it was altogether legitimate, further to the tabling of his report, to discuss and hear the report in this committee. Now, last week—you are entirely correct, Mr. Chair, and you've summarized the situation very well—we held a discussion. You agreed to a vote. The Liberals agreed to vote on a specific request to move forward. We, the Conservatives, voted against it. We have principles, we have values, and we are consistent. But as long as the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is sitting on the committee, I have to inform you that we, the Conservatives—and it's unfortunate for the official language minority communities—we cannot accept this person's presence. Unfortunately, we will continue to intervene with that in mind.
My motion is clear. As of Monday, we have lost seven meetings. Seven meetings means that the official language minority communities have lost out. It's not us, the three opposition parties, that decided to waste these meetings; it's the Liberals, because they won't allow us to vote. Under the circumstances, I must move the motion so that we can make up for lost time in the interest of our mission here at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. That's it in a nutshell.
Now I find it unacceptable that we should be in this situation, which came about because of obstinacy. The Liberals will say that it's the opposition parties being stubborn, but who caused this situation? It wasn't the NDP, it wasn't the Bloc, it wasn't the Conservative Party; it was an MP for the Liberal Party of Canada, the party in power, who treated witnesses in an unacceptable manner. Our institution deserves respect. We challenged your decision, Mr. Chair, to the effect that it was inadmissible. We won, and so the committee's decision must be complied with, just as I complied with its decision last week. The time has to be recovered. I think it's important for us to consider that issue.
I'm going to stop there and wait to hear what the people around the table have to say. There are, as I mentioned, three studies. There's the report on post-secondary institutions, the report on linguistic obligations and the report on economic development, which we could do this summer. I understand that no one around the table would be happy about having to come back. But who caused this situation? It was the people opposite who were being obstructive. We want to move forward. The solution is simple. The government MPs need to allow us to vote, and that would settle matters. It's simple. Abide by the committee's decision. If the committee decides that yes, Mr. Drouin should remain, that will be an end of it. If it decides that, in accordance with Mr. Beaulieu's motion, a report to the Speaker of the House is required, then you will provide a report to the Speaker. We would then have to await the Speaker's decision.
Right now, there's a deadlock. I'll repeat once more that the three opposition parties are in agreement. I'm reaching out, to use an expression we heard as my colleagues were being obstructive. I am reaching out to break this deadlock so that we can start on the right foot in the next session, because there are only one or two meetings left in our spring session. I think telling Quebeckers that we will never raise this matter again would be a wonderful Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day present to them on June 24. We could then move on to something else.
We could then work hard in September on behalf of all francophones, everywhere in Canada, even in Quebec.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Thank you, Mr. Godin.
I have the duty and the important privilege, if you will, of abiding by the procedural rules and regulations of the House of Commons. That is what we are doing. It governs everything that happens, everything you have said and everything that may be said. We have to abide by the rules of procedure. I have to make sure that is done. So far, all sides seem to have abided by the rules of procedure.
In the list of people who want to speak, I see Mr. Généreux's name first, with Mr. Dalton second and Mrs. Kusie third.
June 13th, 2024 / 9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
We have witnesses here with us. I just want to know what the members on the other side are intending to do. We should release Ms. Boyer and Mr. Labelle, if there is a list of people who want to speak.
I ask this question with all due respect, because it is 9:49. We have 25 minutes left.
So I am asking the question. Do they intend to talk and, again, not have a chance to hear the witnesses who are appearing before us for the second time? I repeat: It would be the second time. I am asking out of respect for our witnesses.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Does the committee agree that we release today's witnesses? There are five people wanting to speak.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I am not asking you personally. I am asking the committee.
Shall we release our witnesses, or do you want our witnesses to stay here? At this point, the names on the list are Mr. Généreux, Mr. Dalton, Mrs. Kusie, Mr. Beaulieu and Mr. Drouin.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Chair, I am going to speak for 30 seconds. That is easy; I am going to speak for 30 seconds. We do the math. If we go over 25 minutes, fine, we will let the witnesses go.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
That is not a point of order.
I am asking something, diplomatically. Does the committee want to release our witnesses for the rest of the meeting? I will give you five seconds to see you nod yes or no.
Yes, the floor is yours, Mr. Godin.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, my colleague just said we have to be consistent. If everyone—
