Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to help you. I may have a solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Gourde.

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

Mr. Chair, I've been on committees for 16 years and I've encountered this kind of situation before. You may well rule on the debate by stating that Mr. Généreux's subamendment is out of order in the context of Mr. Godin's amendment. However, if Mr. Généreux were to move the same thing, but this time as an amendment to Mr. Serré's main motion, would that then be in order?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We can always modify amendments, provided that the modification is not proposed by the mover of the amendment, if I understand the rules correctly.

To answer your question, Mr. Gourde, that's a possibility.

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

If you rule that the subamendment is out of order in the context of Mr. Godin's amendment, then we could move this same change, but as an amendment to Mr. Serré's main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, but the person who moved the amendment can't be the one to move the change.

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

Okay.

In short, Mr. Généreux could propose exactly the same thing, but as an amendment to the main motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's right. However, Mr. Godin cannot do it.

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

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, was your intervention earlier about this or was it on another issue?

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

I wanted to speak on your point of order.

I asked if we could reread Mr. Généreux's subamendment. Can we start by reading it again?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Généreux.

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

I propose that point 4 of the original motion amended by Mr. Godin now read as follows:

the committee proceed with clause‑by‑clause consideration of the bill no later than Tuesday, November 29, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. ET, but that, before proceeding with a clause‑by‑clause analysis, Quebec be given the opportunity to appear or to submit its positions before amendments are submitted, in order to protect its requests for amendments.

Basically, the Government of Quebec would like us to give them the opportunity to make proposals or recommendations on some of the things that have already been proposed.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are you okay with that, Mr. Beaulieu? Do you want to comment?

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

This does have implications for the content of the amendment, because if we adopt Mr. Généreux's subamendment, it means that the period for witnesses to appear will have to be extended to allow the Government of Quebec to appear before the committee, if it wants to.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before I get to the substance of the issue, I need to analyze the form and presentation of the subamendment. I don't want to give away any clues to the political parties around the table, but if we look carefully at Mr. Godin's amendments, there may be other places that would be more suitable for Mr. Généreux's subamendment.

Having said that, I'll deal with the matter now.

First of all, Mr. Généreux, do you want to withdraw your subamendment?

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

Actually, rather than withdrawing it, as Mr. Gourde suggested, could I move it as a subamendment somewhere else, as you just mentioned?

If I understand correctly, the problem with the form is that Mr. Godin's amendment to point 4 of Mr. Serré's motion refers to a date, but not my subamendment, which introduces new elements in the amendment.

So my question is, can my subamendment be moved in connection with another amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead and move it to see if there's unanimous consent.

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

Do I need to seek unanimous consent?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Actually, what would your second choice be?

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

I would need to look at where I could move my subamendment. Everyone understands that the idea is to give the Government of Quebec another opportunity to appear before the committee and present its amendments, or at least to submit them before we proceed to our clause-by-clause of Bill C‑13. I think everyone will agree on this proposal.

Mr. Chair, can we suspend the meeting for a few minutes, so I can look for the right place to move my subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before we suspend the meeting, I will go to Ms. Lattanzio.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I want to clarify something. As I understand it, my colleague Mr. Généreux is going to withdraw his subamendment and introduce a new subamendment when we get back from the break. Am I understanding this correctly?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I understood that Mr. Généreux was going to move his subamendment somewhere else not connected to Mr. Godin's amendment to point 4 of Mr. Serré's motion.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Has this subamendment been withdrawn? That's what I'm trying to understand.