Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Then it will be my turn, Mr. Chair.

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

I have a question on procedure.

A letter dated October 13 and signed by Martin Koskinen, the Quebec premier's chief of staff, explicitly states that the Quebec government had sent all the amendments it wanted to propose to the committee and that it wouldn't be sending any representatives. This letter is not six months old, it was written two weeks ago. I understand that there are always new ministers and other changes, but this letter was practically written yesterday.

We are doing serious work here. We've had 16 meetings on this matter and we have received all the documents from Quebec. I think we have all taken the time to look at Quebec's proposals. We do appreciate the fact that the government called Mr. Godin's office, but I don't understand why the Government of Quebec, through the premier's chief of staff, would tell us that it wasn't planning to send representatives to the committee and then suddenly change course.

Are we playing political games, or do we want to make progress on the work we are doing here on a historic bill to act in the interests of Quebec and francophones across Canada? That's what I'm wondering.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chair, may I respond to Ms. Ashton?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

No, it's my turn to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will recognize Mr. Serré and then I may suspend the meeting for a few moments.

Mr. Serré, the floor is yours.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We've held almost 16 meetings and received 54 witnesses and 21 briefs. As Ms. Ashton mentioned, the Government of Quebec has submitted its recommendations and amendments to the bill. It said it wouldn't be sending representatives to the committee. So, I don't know why that would change all of a sudden because the Conservative Party and the Government of Quebec are talking to each other. The Quebec government refused to send representatives to the committee. It has sent us amendments and we will take them into consideration. It is important to work with the Quebec government and we already have the amendments it has proposed.

I therefore don't understand why the Conservative Party is proposing this subamendment, other than to delay the bill yet again. We've received witnesses, we've heard clearly what they had to say, and now it's time for the committee to move forward and vote to continue its study.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

Before we address the substance of the subamendment proposed by Mr. Généreux, I have to say it may procedurally inadmissible, since it introduces a matter that is foreign to the main motion and waters it down. In other words, it may stray too far from the amendment.

I would like to hear the Clerk's thoughts on that.

[The Clerk]

I can read you what the House of Commons Procedure and Practice has to say on the subject, but it's not up to me to decide. That decision is up to the Chair.

Page 542 of Bosc and Gagnon states that a “subamendment cannot enlarge upon the amendment, introduce new matters foreign to it or differ in substance from it.”

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, based on that rule, I would say that modifying point four in the original motion amended by your colleague, Mr. Godin, to include elements that would lead us to consider something other than the date change proposed by Mr. Godin, would be considered as distinct and unrelated to the amendment. I would ask you to respond before I rule on this.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I think that the terminology I used in my subamendment is not foreign to Mr. Godin's motion in amendment as a whole, quite the opposite. In fact, my subamendment emphasizes the importance of Quebec and its needs in relation to the Canadian and Quebec francophonie.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I understand, Mr. Généreux.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Therefore, I don't think that my terminology enlarges upon the amendment, quite the contrary.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, I understand what you're trying to do, but from a technical perspective, the amendment Mr. Godin is making to point four of the original motion, which you want to amend, consists in a change of date and has nothing to do with inviting witnesses. According to the rule you can't change an amendment through a subamendment if it doesn't reflect the sense of the main amendment.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have to say I'm puzzled. The new point five Mr. Beaulieu proposed for the main motion was rejected, and you want to reject my subamendment concerning Quebec as well. That's strike two, and we have to wonder what that really means.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Généreux, I would ask you to show respect for the Chair. I do not play baseball and there is no strike two. You heard the Clerk read us what the House of Commons Procedure and Practice has to say about this on page 542.

As Chair, I have to decide and rule on this matter—

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

Excuse me, but before you do that, I would like to raise a point on the subject.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, Mr. Beaulieu, I saw you. You're next on my list.

I'm talking about Mr. Généreux's subamendment here.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

In light of what the Clerk told us, Mr. Généreux, would you like to withdraw your subamendment, or would you prefer that I rule on the matter?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I will leave it to you to decide, Mr. Chair.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

The floor is yours, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

I would like us to reread Mr. Généreux's subamendment. I really don't see how offering this opportunity to the Quebec government is unrelated to Mr. Godin's amendment. A new minister has just taken office. The Government of Quebec could not have known that there would be a gag order, that debate would be limited and that its proposals would probably not be heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, I will answer that.

At page 542, House of Commons Procedure and Practice tells us about cases where a subamendment goes beyond the amendment itself. Let's keep in mind that Mr. Godin's amendment sought to modify point four of Mr. Serré's motion by changing the date in it. The amendment reads as follows: 4. the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill no later than Tuesday, November 29, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET;

The amendment therefore replaces November 22 with November 29. That's the subject of the amendment.

Page 542 tells us that a subamendment cannot enlarge upon the amendment. I'll give you a hypothetical example: Mr. Généreux could have proposed December 3 instead of November 29. Mr. Godin's amendment consists in the change of date. This is not about inviting witnesses or specifying which ones.

Is that clear to you? The decision I have to make concerns the form and not the substance of Mr. Généreux's subamendment, which I'm not criticizing.

I'll go back to Mr. Généreux.

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

I asked that Mr. Généreux's subamendment be reread. Would that be possible?