Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Vis, go ahead please.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am a new member of the committee. We worked well together at the beginning, but there are lessons to be learned from this debate. When the leader of the government no longer respects the independence of the committee and Mr. Serré imposes such a gag order on the motion, this is what happens.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I must stop you there, Mr. Vis. We've already talked about the need to focus on the amendments and subamendments.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Yes.

We need more time to protect and promote bilingualism in British Columbia right now. We already know that there are a lot of problems in this regard, especially in my province. This motion does not give us enough time to study this bill to promote bilingualism in British Columbia.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Vis, for always making your comments in French. I commend you for that.

Are there any other questions or comments?

I am not seeing anyone who wishes to speak.

Madam Clerk, we shall now proceed to the vote on the fourth and final of the subamendments proposed by Mr. Beaulieu to Mr. Godin's amendment.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5.)

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

We'll go back to Mr. Godin's amendment and go around the table again.

Do you have any comments or remarks to add?

Mr. Godin, you seemed hesitant. I can start with Mr. Beaulieu, if you like.

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

Mr. Chair, I wouldn't want to deny my colleague from the Bloc Québécois his right to speak. At present, the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois are doing an excellent job for francophones in Quebec and outside Quebec.

Are you giving me the floor, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, please go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In response to my colleague Mr. Serré's motion, I have tabled an amendment to establish which ministers and which jurisdictions will appear before us so that we can better frame our work.

I am requesting that the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, as well as their senior officials, be invited to appear, for two hours per minister.

We've heard rumours that the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Official Languages would appear and testify before the committee for only half an hour and then turn things over to their officials. I think it's important for them to appear before us and to hear their testimony.

Once again, the motivation behind this amendment is to ensure that we can do our job properly. We want to know how the Department of Canadian Heritage will adapt to the new Official Languages Act. It is indeed important to ask this of our public servants, but it's even more important to put this question to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Mr. Serré's motion doesn't even include the Minister of Canadian Heritage. However, the text of Bill C‑13 clearly states in black and white that the minister has certain duties and obligations. It is the Minister of Canadian Heritage who, by order-in-council, forms a department — I may not be using the right terminology — or appoints a Minister of Official Languages. The Minister for Official Languages does not have a department. He or she reports to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage wouldn't come and testify? I find that absurd. That is the first point of my amendment.

The second point of my amendment is that the amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages. The dates have been adjusted, but again, it's my amendment so, unfortunately, I can't move a subamendment at this point. As I said earlier, logically, we shouldn't be working based on the calendar, but rather based on sessions. The fact is, when there are votes or when a meeting is postponed, cancelled or suspended, it is always the French language that suffers.

I think this is a good amendment. Having said that, I would prefer that my colleague withdraw his motion, that we establish clearer rules and have a clear timetable and a clear list of work to be done, so that we can move forward and then move on to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Obviously, I will skip reading the text of the amendment, since you have already received it. I'm sure you have it in front of you. I would like to withdraw point 5 of the motion. It is important—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a moment, Mr. Godin. You're saying you want to withdraw point 5, but it's been deleted.

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

Yes, that's right. In fact, in my amendment, I withdraw point 5 of Mr. Serré's motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay. You're not withdrawing the part that you had deleted.

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

No, not at all. I can't change my amendment; I'm following the rules.

Call me to order if I'm wrong.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I was getting to that.

Please continue.

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

As you can appreciate, a motion brought forward by my colleague Mr. Serré is depriving us of our right to speak. We see it as a gag order, and we are asking that this part of the motion be withdrawn completely. This part proposes that clause-by-clause consideration have a time limit imposed on it, and that is not what we want. We want to get this right and we want to make sure that the act is sustainable.

As I said earlier, we want this legislation to stop the decline of French the day after it comes into effect, as well as protect and promote French for the next 50 years.

I want a bilingual Canada. I say this again because there are people in other parties who do not understand the concept of a bilingual country, a Canada where French and English are the two official languages.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I just want to make sure I have this straight.

Does deleting point 5 of my motion mean that we can do clause-by-clause indefinitely, which would mean that the filibuster could go on for years?

I just want to clarify that with the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a moment, Mr. Serré.

I think your question is legitimate in terms of procedure.

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

I find this comment very accusatory. It accuses us of filibustering and acting in bad faith. We have been acting in good faith from the beginning of this debate. We have worked with you, Mr. Chair, and with all members of the committee.

It's important to mention that. In my view, his question was relevant, but his accusatory comment was not.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, I feel a bit like someone who has to choose between their right arm and their left arm. On the one hand, you accuse people here in the room of making derogatory comments, while on the other hand, you say that people are oppressing you.

As I said, let's be courteous, as we have always been in committee, and let's do the right thing. Let's focus on the amendments and subamendments. I have heard the same things from both sides of the table. Let's stop pointing fingers at one another and let's follow our parliamentary rules of procedure. We have proven that we can follow them, because usually the debate here goes very well.

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Beaulieu?

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

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to know if we're going to proceed, as you suggested earlier, one item at a time, or if we are going to deal with them all at once.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You raise a good point, Mr. Beaulieu. However, before I get into that, I want to address the matter concerning Mr. Serré.

I'll give you a brief answer.

Remember that we accepted Mr. Godin's motion as a package two weeks ago, so we will deal with it as a package. However, this is an exceptional situation. From now on, the committee will do it the way we did it with you, point by point. That way, we will not lose track of the amendment. We have accepted these five points as one amendment, so we will address it as such.

I will take a moment to check with the clerk regarding the pertinent question that I believe was asked by Mr. Serré.

Mr. Serré, to answer your question, it is indeed the committee that manages its clause-by-clause. There is nothing to prevent it from continuing a study ad vitam aeternam, in the extreme. Only the House of Commons can impose limits on a committee. I hope that answers your question.

That being said, we will now go to Mr. Godin.

Mr. Godin, you may continue your remarks on your amendments.

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

I'd like to make a comment in relation to what you just said, Mr. Chair.

I think it is important to inform the committee members of the following.

At any time, this committee can hold a vote to decide to stop clause-by-clause consideration. Unfortunately, because of their coalition, the Liberal Party and the NDP have a majority.

I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Chair, that I don't understand the concern—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin—

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

Once again, the government is on a witch hunt.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Godin, that's not a point of order. You just criticized your opponents for making derogatory references, but you just did that yourself.

Let's show some wisdom. We are all very wise and we know the rules that apply to us as parliamentarians. Let's follow our rules of procedure. Sometimes it can be annoying for both sides, but let's follow the rules of procedure that are imposed on us, and let's do so with total respect. By doing so, we will be fine. As I said, let's stop making derogatory comments on all sides of the table, because it doesn't advance the debate. As you tell us and often remind us, it is in the fundamental interest of our bilingual Canada.

That said, I have addressed Mr. Serré's concerns, which were valid.

We are looking at your amendments to Mr. Serré's motion.

Other than a point of order, are there any other comments on Mr. Godin's amendments?

I'll start with Mr. Beaulieu.