Official Languages Committee on Oct. 31st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 118 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

In order to avoid acoustic incidents, I would like to remind participants who are here in person that they must wait for me to call on them before speaking and turning on their microphones. They should also keep their earpieces as far away from the microphone as possible.

I also ask them to read the small card in front of them on the table.

So we're picking up exactly where we left off in the debate on Mr. Iacono's motion.

When the last meeting was adjourned, the list was as follows: Mr. Iacono had the floor, followed by Mr. Godin and Ms. Gladu. That's the order of the speakers I have on the list for now. I see that Mr. Dalton has his hand raised, so I'll add him to the list too.

We'll start with Mr. Iacono.

Mr. Iacono, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings to my colleagues this morning.

Mr. Chair, by way of context, I would like to remind you that last Thursday, October 24, Conservative MP Larry Brock criticized the fact that Minister Duclos provided an answer in French to a question put to him in English.

A series of incidents followed. Last Tuesday, at a meeting of this committee, I presented the following motion:

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 language of Canada; That the Committee remind all MPs of their right to speak in either of the two official languages at all times in Parliament; That the Committee request that the MP for Brantford—Brant apologize in the House to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement of Canada, to the 4,000 Franco-Ontarians in his riding, to all Francophone MPs and all the Francophones in Canada; That the Committee recognize 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 the face of repeated antiFrancophone remarks by his MPs.

After spending an hour using delaying tactics to prevent a vote on this motion last Tuesday morning, MP Godin made the following remarks during debates in the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon: “Canada is a bilingual country that uses French and English. Let us not forget that.” He made a strong case for the French fact. I'll say it again: He made a strong case for the French fact. These are powerful words, and I continue: “We need to protect this bilingualism. It is a strength that attracts people who have the chance to be able to use both languages.”

If the French fact is so important to him and his party, why did no one on the other side of the House object to the comments made by the member for Brantford—Brant last Thursday, when my colleagues and I witnessed the scene?

It's very interesting that there was no intervention other than to start shouting at us.

For the Canadians who are listening this morning, for Canada's francophones and for the 80% of the population, as Mr. Godin said last Tuesday afternoon in the House, who approve of bilingualism, will the opposition parties affirm the importance of French by demanding an apology in the House for the disrespect of the member for Brantford—Brant?

The Conservatives must stop saying one thing and its opposite and must shoulder the weight of their words. I repeat that, for the 80% of the population who support bilingualism and for francophones in Quebec and the rest of Canada, these are the words that Mr. Joël Godin was saying, shouting and inventing in the House of Commons.

Why does he refuse to allow his colleague to apologize in the House of Commons for his lack of respect for francophones and the French language?

Mr. Chair, the Conservatives' lack of respect for francophones is a recurring theme. Once again, in the face of such disrespect, I have never seen another Conservative MP stand up and challenge the actions and words of other MPs.

On October 24, MP Larry Brock objected to a response in French from Minister Duclos. On November 23, 2023, MP Rachael Thomas demanded answers in English from Ministre Pascale St-Onge to her questions at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. It was at a committee meeting.

Soon, when I answer or speak in English, my colleagues opposite will probably tell me I should speak in French.

To top it off, in 2019, a Conservative MP from Quebec, Mr. Luc Berthold, criticized Minister Diane Lebouthillier in the House of Commons for answering in French to questions asked in English.

Enough is enough.

Will my Conservative colleagues on this committee continue to bury their heads in the sand when their colleagues disrespect francophones, or will they call them to order and demand an apology in the right place?

I don't know if they're capable of doing that. They never have.

Member Larry Brock lied in the House and his colleagues are repeating and amplifying his lie. He did it on a point of order after question period. I was still sitting in my seat. My colleague Mr. Lightbound and I sit in front of him. We saw the whole thing. We saw the scene and the way the Conservatives acted in that situation and their lack of respect for the French language, for French-speaking MPs and for all French-speaking Canadians.

I'll quote what the MP said when he returned to the House:

“My volume was not working correctly on my headpiece. That is why I made the reference.”

This is nonsense.

Madam Clerk, just to clarify the importance of the motion we're talking about today in relation to the incidents—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Samson, would you please mute your microphone?

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

I apologize. I had moved the video window on my screen.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You may continue, Mr. Iacono.

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

Thank you.

So as not to lose the thread, I'll repeat.

Member of Parliament Larry Brock lied in the House of Commons. His colleagues repeated and amplified his lie. On a point of order, he said after oral question period:

“My volume was not working correctly on my headpiece. That is why I made the reference.”

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Please wait a moment, Mr. Iacono.

Mr. Godin has a point of order.

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

Mr. Chair, I wonder about the use of certain words.

Can MP Iacono say that some MPs lie?

Maybe I'd like to consult the clerk about that.

Does a member have the right to say that another member is lying, and must we accept this?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

From what I understand, he was in the middle of explaining what he was referring to and didn't get a chance to finish his sentence.

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

Mr. Chair, as soon as he spoke, he said that the member was lying.

I could say you're a killer and then explain why. I don't have the right to say you're a killer. That would be decided later.

My question is quite simple: is using the word “lie” when referring to another MP allowed in parliamentary language?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Indeed, Mr. Iacono, until proven otherwise, we could use more suitable parliamentary language.

I'm trying to find a synonym, but I'll leave you with this. I'll think about it, but go on with what you were going to say.

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Wait a moment, Mr. Godin.

Continue, but use different words. Perhaps you could say that the member's comments were not accurate.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, you are not supposed to tell a member what words to use.

I'd like you to tell me if the use of the word “lie”, when one is talking about another MP, is allowed in parliamentary language?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

As I just explained to Mr. Iacono, this is not parliamentary language. There's nothing to prevent me, as chair, from suggesting synonyms to someone, for example, to say that comments weren't accurate or didn't reflect reality.

You could say that the member didn't tell the truth, which is even more direct. I allow myself the flexibility, as chair, to help a member of any political party.

Mr. Iacono, I'll let you get on with it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to withdraw the word “lie” and replace it with “distort the facts”.

Madam Clerk, in order to clarify the importance of the motion we're talking about today, which relates to last Thursday's incidents in the House, can we view the segment from Oral Question Period on October 24, 2024, at 3:03 p.m. and 54 seconds?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Wait a moment, Mr. Iacono.

I'm told there's no technical way to reproduce this segment, both for those in the room and those in virtual mode.

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

That's unfortunate.

Canadians who watched the House debates last Thursday could see that Larry Brock was not wearing his earpiece. For those who would like to see the recording, it was at 3:03 p.m. and 54 seconds. He wasn't interested in the answer and, without any embarrassment, attributed his lack of respect for francophones to a fake equipment failure. That says it all. It's really disappointing to see such gestures, because it's simply a question of language. He doesn't respect francophones, since he has repeatedly decided not to wear his earpiece. I've witnessed it myself, because I sit opposite him in the House.

Moreover, on Tuesday, my esteemed colleagues on the other side shouted loudly that he had apologized in the House; when I made my speech and mentioned the equipment breakdown, they shouted that this was indeed the cause. Yet my colleague Mr. Godin was not in the House when the event occurred. However, my colleague Mr. Généreux was present. It's nothing personal, Mr. Généreux—

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, if we apply the same rules as in the House, we don't have the right to talk about the presence or absence of members in committee either. My colleague, who has been an MP since 2015, should know the rules. What's more, I think he's a lawyer. So I think he was already manipulating the rules in his daily life, before he was an MP.

I'd like you to rule on this, Mr. Chair. Does my colleague have the right to mention, in committee, my presence or absence from the House?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's an excellent theoretical question. Indeed, we all know that in the House of Commons, it's forbidden to mention someone's absence, although some members of certain political parties go out of their way to do so almost every day. They are called to order, but in the end, the damage is done.

However, here we are in committee and, honestly, I don't have the answer at my fingertips. I don't want to waste time talking about it. If you don't mind, I'd like to say that we should refrain from mentioning, in committee, the absence of people in the House of Commons, whatever the period in question. I would infer that to be the case. Committees are creations of Parliament, so I imagine that by association, this rule applies, but we can agree today that it's peculiar to mention this in committee.

So, Mr. Iacono, I propose that in committee, we apply the same rule that applies in the House of Commons, that is, we don't mention the absence or presence of people in the House of Commons.

Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

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

In fact, Mr. Chair, what I'm asking you is to come back to the committee with a very clear decision. I understand that you don't have the information today, but I'm asking you to tell us, at a future meeting, whether we have the right to do this or not. You didn't say we're not allowed to do it, you just suggested to Mr. Iacono that he shouldn't do it. That's my understanding. If that's the case, I ask you to confirm it, and then we can move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I've just read Standing Order 116, which sums up what I've just said even better than I can. Indeed, by inference, the rules of the House must be observed in committees, insofar as they apply, which is the case here.

Mr. Iacono, you have the floor.