Official Languages Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[Éric Caron-Malenfant]

In December.

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

Good. This survey will provide exceptional data.

Mr. Chair, I'll give the rest of my time to my colleague, Mr. Iacono.

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

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

Mr. Chair, I would like to move my motion.

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

Mr. Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

It's his time—

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

No, Mr. Chair. I'm just raising my hand to let you know that I plan to ask to speak immediately after the introduction of the motion. I want everyone to know that I asked to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay.

You have the floor, Mr. Iacono.

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

I don't know how much time I have left, Mr. Chair. I hope that you stopped the timer.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I stopped it, but I'm starting it up again.

The floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My motion reads as follows:

That the Committee expresses its disappointment at the behaviour of Conservative MPs, notably the MP for Lethbridge and the MP for Brantford—Brant, toward Francophone ministers and toward the entirety of the Canadian population that speaks French, an official langue of Canada; That the Committee remind all MPs of their right to speak in whichever of the two official languages at all times in Parliament; That the Committee request that the MP for Brantford—Brant apologises in the House to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement of Canada, to the 4,000 Franco-Ontarians in his riding, and to all Francophone MPs and all the Francophones in Canada; That the Committee recognises that French is just as important to Canada’s bilingual status as English, and that French is indispensable to the Canadian identity; That the Committee denounce the inaction of the Conservative leader in face of repeated antiFrancophone remarks by his MPs.

I would first like to remind my colleagues, in particular the members of the Official Opposition, of subsection 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states:

16(1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

I see that my colleague opposite is wondering why I am reading that. He may have forgotten, so I will remind him that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms exists today and contains that section, which refers to the official languages of Canada. I also want to point out that the peoples of the two founding nations of Canada, anglophones and francophones, came together under the umbrella of our Confederation, and that respect for francophones is in no way optional.

On October 24, after the member for Brantford—Brant asked the Minister of Public Services and Procurement his question and the minister answered in French, the member for Brantford—Brant said to the minister:

...my question is in English, but I digress.

It is the duty of every parliamentarian to uphold our Constitution.

Furthermore, it is shameful for a Canadian elected member to rise in the House of Commons to criticize a minister for answering him in French.

I find it hard to understand the inertia on the part of opposition members, whether from the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party or the NDP, and particularly on the part of members from Quebec and of Franco-Ontarians and Acadians, in the face of this crude insult from the official opposition. I hope that instead of protecting their Conservative friends who have been so disrespectful of francophones, they will denounce this insult and call for the member for Brantford—Brant to apologize.

It is time to show your true colours and demand unconditional respect for French in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

This is the list of members who wish to speak, so far, in this order: Mr. Godin, Mr. Samson, Mr. Lightbound and Mr. Serré.

If you want to add your name to the list, make sure I see you raise your hand.

The floor is yours, Mr. Godin.

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

In fact, Mr. Chair, I don't want to give up my speaking time, but I have a point of order.

Is this motion in order? I would like us to think about that. By allowing this motion, we give the committee the power to dictate the conduct of a member in the House of Commons.

So before going any further, Mr. Chair, I might like to ask that you consult the clerk on this point, or, if you already have the answer, you tell us what it is. I will then resume my speaking time.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That is an excellent question, Mr. Godin.

I actually did think for a minute when I read the motion. I was reminded of the motion that Mr. Beaulieu made, as we will recall, following on the episode of the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, in which consequences were called for. Do you remember that? The issue was consequences, which might even be called sanctions. However, imposing sanctions on someone is completely outside committees' terms of reference. That is really the objective of this motion. I ruled it out of order, but despite that, the committee overruled the chair's decision.

I am now explaining where my analysis is coming from. I based my decision on something that was clear, in my opinion. Of course, I am talking about that other motion, the one that Mr. Beaulieu made earlier. I thought it was completely out of order because our rules clearly state that no sanction may be taken against anyone.

In this case, I find the motion to be in order, and this is why. It is not a motion for a report to be made to the House of Commons. It is not a motion calling for sanctions. It is not a motion asking that someone be ejected from somewhere. It does not contain sanctions as the motion I alluded to did.

This motion asks someone to apologize, without calling for him to be removed from somewhere or calling for sanctions against him. The motion asks the committee to express its disappointment at the events it refers to, to recognize that French is just as important as English, and to denounce the inaction of a leader, and stops there. As you know, since I have often said it in the past, I always prefer to interpret the rules permissively, rather than the opposite. I therefore find this motion to be in order.

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

In fact, I—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Have I answered your question?

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

No. You have partially answered it.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Let's say it is not the answer you wanted to hear.

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

No; that's right. You have read my reaction correctly. My non-verbal language speaks volumes.

At this point, Mr. Chair, I take your comment and your position on board. You began by alluding to the motion regarding the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. In that case, you had decided it was not in order, and it was the committee that decided.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No. It was clear on its face that under the Standing Orders it was not in order. A committee may not sanction someone; that is clear. Nonetheless, the committee overruled the chair's decision. In a case like that, the Standing Orders provide that the House must deal with the question. There were lengthy discussions after that.

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

By your argument, Mr. Chair, in order to take a position on the motion that my colleague has now moved, you based your decision on the motion you initially alluded to. You….

I see that you want to add something, Mr. Chair, so I will let you speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I am not Lord Denning. That name may not mean anything to you, but the lawyers here know who I am talking about.

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

That is my understanding, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I have to base my decisions on the committee's previous decisions. To be as objective as possible, I have to compare the two situations.

If, after reading the motion, you still think it is asking the committee to impose a sanction on one of our colleagues, I am prepared to hear you. However, if—

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

I think—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That is what I am trying to explain. That is the difference between the two motions.