Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No, Mr. Beaulieu. What you're doing is not right: You're moving amendments to the bill before we've even reached the clause-by-clause study.

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

I'm not moving amendments to the bill. I'm just saying what the clause-by-clause study should start with.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That has nothing to do with Mr. Godin's amendments. So here's my decision: Unless you retract it, we're going to deal with your first subamendment, which is about Mr. Godin's amendments, as written by you.

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

But we want to replace the final amendment moved by Mr. Godin. We're saying that we need to do the clause-by-clause study, that there should be no limits, but that it should start with Quebec's demands, because they haven't been addressed at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, I'm not going to repeat what I just said. You cannot move amendments to the bill—

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

If you really insist, we can start with the first two subamendments. I just want us to talk about all of my subamendments, because I don't think they're out of order: I'm specifying which amendments I believe we should start with.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before we move on, Ms. Lattanzio has a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The subamendments we're studying go beyond proposing amendments to the procedural elements of Mr. Godin's amendment. They also propose amendments to the substance of the bill we're studying.

In my opinion, these subamendments may be inadmissible. I would therefore like to submit them to the clerk and hear her point of view. She can tell us whether we can dispose of them in their current form.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio. That's basically what I was going to say.

Madam Clerk, I would like to hear your opinion on this.

[The Clerk]

During the clause-by-clause study, the committee must study the proposed amendments and subamendments in the order in which the clauses appear in the bill. It's not possible to change the manner in which the committee deals with amendments during the clause-by-clause study.

Does that answer your question, Ms. Lattanzio?

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

Actually, Madam Clerk, I would like you to tell us if the motion submitted to us is admissible, because I think Mr. Beaulieu's subamendments are mixed. Some would amend Mr. Godin's amendments regarding the procedure and time frame, while others seem to concern the substance of the bill.

Those last subamendments are being moved even though we haven't even set a deadline for submitting them yet. It seems like an attempt to get a head start on the other committee members, even though the committee hasn't even set a deadline yet. It seems like these subamendments are an attempt to get in through the back door.

I think they're inadmissible, and I'd like to know what you or the Chair think about this way of proceeding.

[The Clerk]

The proposed subamendments to the amendments that Mr. Godin would like to make to points one to five of Mr. Serré's motion are in order. However, the section starting with “That, in the context of the clause-by-clause study” and what follows is not in order.

If you would like to suspend the meeting to talk about it over the phone, Mr. Arseneault, that would be easier.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No, we don't need to suspend. I think it's all clear. It's evident—

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

Mr. Chair, could—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

That means that if the committee wanted to decide to start with certain parts of the bill instead of examining each clause in order, it wouldn't be allowed to do that. The committee wouldn't be allowed to decide—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, it means that would have to be done through a motion.

That's not the case here, because we're studying subamendments to amendments moved by Mr. Godin. The only parts that are in order are the ones you sent us in writing, which are about points one to five inclusive of Mr. Serré's motion.

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

If we move these amendments in a separate motion, would they be admissible then?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No, you can't do that, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

But you just said a motion could be moved. That being said, the clerk seems sure of her facts: All committees studying bills must proceed in the order in which the clauses appear. Do I have that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes.

For now, we have a window, if I may put it that way: We're discussing amendments moved by Mr. Godin. That means your subamendments need to focus strictly on them. If there is nothing else to discuss, I am allowing you to call for a vote on the subamendments that you are moving and that are about points one to five inclusive of Mr. Serré's motion, in accordance with the document you just sent us, but nothing more. Is that all right with you?

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

There were some people who had asked to speak. I don't know if they want to say anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, they can speak on this topic.

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

Mr. Chair, I think I agree with the clerk and with everyone. However, one of the amendments we moved was to delete point five of Mr. Serré's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's right.