Official Languages Committee on June 6th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call this meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 25 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today's meeting is in a hybrid format. Members will attend in person or with the Zoom application.

In light of the recommendations from health authorities regarding the pandemic, all those attending the meeting in person should follow the directives of the Board of Internal Economy.

I thank the members in advance for their cooperation.

Should any technical challenges arise, please advise me immediately. We may need to suspend for a few minutes as we need to ensure all members are able to participate fully.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, May 30, 2022, the committee is undertaking its study of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

Before welcoming the witnesses, I want to give the floor to Mr. Drouin, who wishes to speak.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

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

I would like to introduce a motion that pertains to what we're studying today. This motion is in the same spirit as the discussions we've had since April.

I'll read it so it appears in the minutes. Then it can be distributed.

That, in relation to the consideration of Bill C‑13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts: a. the Minister of Official Languages, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship be invited to appear; b. the Commissioner of Official Languages be invited to appear for a one-hour meeting on Wednesday, June 15, 2022; c. the clerk invite witnesses to appear during the meetings on the weeks of June 6, 2022, and June 13, 2022; d. amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than 12:00 p.m. ET on Friday, June 17, 2022, or 48 hours before the start of clause‑by‑clause review of the bill, whichever comes first; e. the committee commence clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill no later than Monday, June 20, 2022, at 3:30 p.m. ET; f. if the committee has not completed the clause‑by‑clause consideration of the Bill by 5:30 p.m. ET on Tuesday, June 21, 2022, all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question, forthwith and successively, without further debate on all remaining clauses and proposed amendments, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of clause‑by‑clause consideration of the Bill, as well as all questions necessary to report the Bill to the House and to order the Chair to report the Bill to the House as soon as possible; g. the clerk of the committee write immediately to each member who is not a member of a caucus represented on the committee and any independent members to inform them of the study of Bill C‑13 by the committee and to invite them to prepare and submit any proposed amendments to Bill C‑13 which they would suggest that the committee consider during the clause‑by‑clause study of the Bill; and h. as agreed to on Wednesday, June 1, 2022, subject to the approval of the recognized parties' whips, and the availability of meeting slots from the House of Commons, the committee hold as many additional meetings as possible with the goal of accomplishing a maximum of 15 hours of study prior to the beginning of clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill.

I'm aware my honourable colleague has also introduced a motion. If we must move forward, I'm receptive to the idea of including the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

Does anyone wish to speak to the motion?

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, we don't have the text of the motion to hand.

Our colleague read it, but it contains a lot of elements. What I understand from the motion is that we want to speed up the process. However, I don't necessarily agree on the way my colleague, or probably the representatives of the party in power, want to go about it. The Liberal Party has been in power for seven years, and we now find ourselves in a funnel.

The bill was introduced on March 1, 2022, then sent to the committee last Monday, and we've constantly been rushed since then.

This is a very important bill for official languages. We need to take the time to study it and to have the resources to study it.

As I understand the motion read by my colleague, this is an attempt to limit our time. I'm going to wait until I have the text of the motion in hand before making any more specific comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's good, Mr. Godin.

While we wait for the text of the motion to be distributed, I will turn the floor over to Ms. Ashton.

Go ahead, Ms. Ashton.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Good afternoon, everyone.

First, I'd like to say that it's troubling that committee members didn't receive the motion in advance. We're all here to work in good faith and to move things along quickly.

As I previously said, we want to add meeting hours. We want to hear from key ministers and witnesses. We've just suggested some witnesses.

We think we need more meeting hours. We agree with the first part of the motion, but we find several parts of it unacceptable because they limit the committee's democratic ability to do a good job with this historic bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours.

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

It seems to me we're supposed to receive motions in advance. Now we can't vote on this motion right away. My understanding is that it's been introduced.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No 48‑hour notice is required for a study. The motion concerns the current study.

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

I see.

I also think it's incredible that a gagging order has been applied to expedite second reading of the bill and to limit debate as much as possible, and this situation will continue. This major bill will have a significant impact on francophones in Quebec, and a lot of work needs to be done to make it acceptable to Quebec. I don't understand why we want to bulldoze this bill through.

We've been discussing it for years, and suddenly we have to do a quick second reading. Today is June 7, and we have two weeks to go until the summer break. We're being told we have to ram it through and see all the witnesses. We have a lot of bills to consider, and I don't think this makes any sense.

We have to take the time to do things right, as was said at the last meeting. I don't know whether it's possible to introduce contrary motions, but it seems to me we had agreed to take the necessary time to listen to the witnesses. We can ultimately do the clause‑by‑clause consideration in September.

I don't think this makes any sense.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

Ms. Ashton, is your hand still raised or have you just forgotten to lower it?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

I raised it again.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

All right.

In that case, the next speakers will be Mr. Drouin, Ms. Ashton and Mr. Généreux.

Mr. Drouin, the floor is yours.

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

I just want to remind members of the committee that, through Mr. Serré, we asked to do a pre-study in April and you rejected the idea. I introduced a similar motion. You rejected it, and debate stopped. After that, I was accused of wanting to speed up testimony and bulldoze the process.

I would remind you that 15 hours represent one month or even five weeks of committee meetings, and that's not including clause‑by‑clause consideration. We'd be holding meetings that are usually spread over six or seven weeks in the space of two weeks. That's significant. There are never any guarantees for a minority government. The official language minority communities want us to pass the bill as soon as possible.

Yes, there will be amendments, but if we don't set a limit, we'll still be here in December hearing the same things from all the witnesses. We're refusing to allow Bill C‑13 to be passed in the House of Commons, and, unfortunately, my community will once again pay the price.

I've been an MP long enough to understand the tactics used in Parliament. I find this appalling. Fifteen hours of meetings to hear testimony represent five weeks, and that doesn't even include clause‑by‑clause consideration. That takes us up to six or seven weeks.

No one should think we don't want to hear testimony; that's not at all what we're saying. We wouldn't be having this discussion if we had simply adopted Mr. Serré's motion in early April. We would have started the work already.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, I don't like our colleague criticizing us for decisions we've made in the past. I understand his arguments and I respect…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Pardon me, Mr. Godin, but that's not a point of order. I believe criticism is a two-way street..

Ms. Ashton, you have the floor. Then it will be Mr. Généreux' turn.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

During our debate last Monday, I believe we all discussed our expectations for the coming weeks. Personally, Mr. Chair, I'm eager to hear what you have to say about the possibility of adding study time, actually not just theoretically. I know you've already sent out an email concerning a possible meeting. I agreed to that proposal, but I don't know what's happened with the other members of the committee. I think we need to know what we're going to work on.

In light of last week's debate and the idea of adding study time, I'm moving an amendment to the motion, that we retain paragraph a) concerning the appearance of ministers, paragraph b) concerning the appearance of the Commissioner of Official Languages, whose comments we of course want to hear, and paragraph c) concerning the appearance of witnesses during the weeks of June 6, 2022, and June 13, 2022.

I move that we delete paragraphs d), e), f) and g). As for paragraph h), I move that we delete all mention of the 15 hours of study and that we amend the paragraph to read as follows:

as agreed to on June 1, 2022, subject to the approval of the recognized parties' whips, and the availability of meeting slots from the House of Commons, the committee hold additional meetings.

I think that reflects our wish to add hours of study and to hold additional meetings, but we mustn't bulldoze the process, as Mr. Beaulieu put it.

The government had promised to introduce this bill in the first 100 days of its mandate, but that didn't happen. We're working based on the government's timeframe. We want to add hours of study and do a serious job, which doesn't limit our ability, as a committee, to improve this bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Ms. Ashton, you've moved an amendment. We have to focus on that now. I don't want to make you work too hard, but would you please summarize your amendment since everyone has the document in front of them?

As I understand it, you said paragraphs a), b) and c) would remain unchanged.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

That's correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

What do you propose next?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

I move that paragraphs d), e), f) and g) be deleted.

As for paragraph h), I move that the mention of 15 hours of study be deleted. I would retain everything else, and the new paragraph would read as follows:

as agreed to on June 1, 2022, subject to the approval of the recognized parties' whips, and the availability of meeting slots from the House of Commons, the committee hold additional meetings.

The idea is thus to delete the mention of 15 hours of study.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Gourde, Mr. Godin and Ms. Lattanzio would like to comment on the amendment.

Just a moment, please, Mr. Gourde.

For those of you who are looking at me and who already had their hands raised, I mentioned the speaking list earlier. As we are debating an amendment to the motion, we will start over from the top of that list.

Consequently, speakers will address their remarks solely to the amendment moved by Ms. Ashton.

Mr. Gourde and Mr. Godin raised their hands at the same time, and Ms. Lattanzio also raised her hand.

Mr. Gourde, the floor is yours.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also want to make my voice heard because we want to work hard on this bill. It's a historic bill that has been awaited for nearly 50 years. Consequently, I wouldn't want us to settle the matter in haste, over two or three weeks, because that would really be sad for us and for all Canadians. Its content could very well be established for the next 50 years.

I would also like to move a subamendment, but parts of it are similar to Ms. Ashton's proposal. First, in paragraph d), I'd like to delete the words “no later than 12:00 p.m. ET on Friday, June 17, 2022, or 48 hours before the start of clause‑by‑clause review”.

The lack of a fixed date could cause a problem.