Official Languages Committee on Oct. 29th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I have two lists, one of which dealt with the amendment. I ruled the amendment out of order. Is that clear to everyone?

Can we go back to the motion, or do you want to—

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

No, Mr. Chair. I would like to propose another amendment.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Godin doesn't have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

He does not have the floor right now.

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

In that case, I raise my hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's fine.

The list of those who want to speak to the motion is as follows: Mr. Samson, Mr. Lightbound, Mr. Serré, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Godin and Ms. Gladu.

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

Mr. Chair, do you have my name? I had my hand up before. So I have to be at the top of the list, not at the end.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'll add that, Mr. Iacono.

Mr. Dalton, do you have a point of order?

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

No, Mr. Chair.

My name should be on both lists, on the motion and on the amendment. However, you ruled that the amendment was out of order. On the list of the motion, I think my name should be fifth, but I don't know why it doesn't appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You're right. I will combine my list with that of the clerk.

Here is the new list: Mr. Samson, Mr. Lightbound, Mr. Serré, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Dalton, Mr. Iacono, Mr. Godin and Ms. Gladu.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

That's better.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

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

I don't want to speak for long, because I think we should proceed with the vote rather than argue, to be honest.

I must tell you that I was astounded to hear the member's comments. It's mainly because this is the second time that the same party, a party supposedly willing to protect both official languages, has made such a statement. I was really very disappointed. It was an attack on my identity of choice. That's rare, because I'm so proud of bilingualism in Ottawa. However, when I hear things like that, it hurts me as much as it hurt Mr. Duclos.

I would ask that we vote as soon as possible so that we can continue our work.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Samson.

Mr. Lightbound, you have the floor.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect to the motion before us, I can clearly see the discomfort and embarrassment of the Conservatives, who want to do everything except talk about what happened in the House last Thursday.

I understand their discomfort, because what we observed last Thursday echoes years of condescension and contempt from that party toward parliamentarians who speak French. Other colleagues have experienced it. I experienced it when I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and I answered in French, because, as we know, French is my mother tongue and I have the right to speak French in the House. I saw it in their eyes, I heard it in their sighs, and we hear it, year after year, in their comments like the one the member for Brantford—Brant made to remind the minister that his question was in English. Even though Mr. Généreux would have us believe otherwise, we all know very well what he was trying to do. He was trying to insinuate that Mr. Duclos, who is a francophone, should have answered him in English, because the question was put to him in English. It's embarrassing and it's shameful.

The member has tried to pay lip service to this by offering an apology in the House, which wasn't really an apology. He then repeated the message on the X platform and Mr. Duclos accepted his apology. This testifies to Mr. Duclos's great class, and I agree with him. I also appreciate what Ms. Gladu said. She's right that mistakes are human.

However, that doesn't prevent this committee from speaking out about what happened and condemning this type of behaviour, which, as I recall, didn't happen through the workings of the Holy Spirit. We have seen this kind of behaviour from the Conservative Party for years. What amazes me is that my Quebec colleagues, francophone and francophile, on the other side of the House are also unable, once in a while, when the mistake is on their side, to step up and say that it makes no sense. That isn't how francophone parliamentarians should be treated. That isn't how we should respect francophone Canadians.

I think the motion is very relevant. It's not binding, but I think it clearly expresses the committee's view of what happened on Thursday in the House. I hope that my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, who, we assume, have official languages at heart, will rally around something that is ultimately not very controversial.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Lightbound.

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to add a few points to Mr. Lightbound's comments. First, since Mr. Brock's actions took place in the House, he should have apologized in the House. Clearly, an apology on the platform X is not an apology.

In a way, it's pure hypocrisy. When Mr. Drouin made a certain comment in this committee, he apologized at a meeting of the same committee. He did it in the media as well. He has apologized time and time again, but the Conservative motion has not been withdrawn. I find it very difficult to understand the total hypocrisy of the Conservatives here.

We must also remember the comments made to Ms. Lebouthillier by one of the Conservative members from Quebec, Mr. Berthold. He told her that she should speak English. We know Ms. Lebouthillier and how important her comments are. We are talking about a Quebecker who told a Quebecker to speak English. I think, as was mentioned earlier, there is a trend here. However, we can agree, accept the motion and continue our work on official languages.

Furthermore, I think that Mr. Généreux's comment earlier about the earpiece not working wasn't very convincing—and I'm being nice when I say that. In that case, it is possible to raise a point of order, which is often raised in the House, to indicate that the earpiece isn't working and that there is a problem with the interpretation. It's acceptable to ask for words to be repeated, and in the case of Mr. Duclos, those words would have been repeated in French.

I don't understand the argument that was made. So I'm just suggesting that we vote on the motion. These are really precedents that are included. The motion doesn't ask that we go back to the House, unlike the motion the Conservatives moved in the case of Mr. Drouin. We were talking about sending this motion back to the House, which would have needlessly encroached on its time. In this case, we are simply telling Mr. Brock to apologize to Mr. Duclos in the House. It's really simple to do. Then we should move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Serré.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu.

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

What's unfortunate is that we've lost the time that was supposed to be devoted to the witnesses from Statistics Canada. Personally, I have two motions pending, but I had initially suggested to my Liberal colleagues that we allow our guests to testify before presenting our motions. That is not at all what happened, and we were not able to question them. I find that deplorable.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Dalton.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

I agree with Mr. Beaulieu that we didn't wait or take the time to have a discussion with our witnesses, which I think could have been very important.

However, coming back to the motion, the member in question clearly apologized in the House of Commons. Just as you have already dealt with the motion concerning Mr. Drouin, the committee doesn't have the power to compel a member to apologize to the House of Commons. So it's clear.

However, the motion reads as follows: 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;

I totally agree. This is important. We're not talking about culture, but about the French language. It's really important for us as a country to determine who we are, and to me it's very personal. I make every effort in the House of Commons to answer, and even ask questions, in French. I encourage my colleagues to speak French, as well as those who are learning the language. I think that's crucial.

I can't say that I'm embarrassed, but it's a bit of an affront to hear that we, the Conservatives, are against the French language and that this is proof of that here, with this person who apologized. I really don't think that's the case. I know that my colleague and many members of Parliament, if not the majority, are learning French and making an effort. We think it's important to do that.

The passage I quoted refers to “essential to the Canadian identity”. That's true. Even the word “canadien” is French. So that's part of our identity. That's why I oppose the Bloc Québécois when it says “we are a nation”. Canada is a nation that includes Quebec and francophones.

I'll take my time to explain—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just one moment, please.

I will advise the committee that the House has been suspended, but there will be no vote. That was just to reassure you.

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

For your information, can the committee continue to sit in this case?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'm going to enforce the rule that a meeting started before the bells ring can continue.

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

I'm not familiar with that rule.