Official Languages Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Clerk]

The decision is yours.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Is there unanimous consent to restart the meeting from the beginning?

Actually, I'll flip the question the other way. Is there anyone opposed to us restarting the meeting so that it is live from the beginning to now?

No one around the table is against it. We will therefore resume the meeting from the beginning.

For the public, who can probably hear us now, we are going back a little bit because the first two or three minutes of the meeting are missing.

I therefore call this meeting to order. Welcome. We are resuming meeting No. 38 of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, suspended on November 15.

Today’s meeting is taking place in hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members may attend in person or through the Zoom application.

To provide some context, I remind everyone that on Tuesday, before it suspended, the committee was discussing Mr. Serré’s suggestion to pass the first four points of Mr. Godin’s amendment, reject the fifth point and add a sixth. That’s a summary. We can now refer to last Tuesday’s meeting.

As I said, we can proceed this way if there is unanimous consent. Otherwise, we will have to come back to the debate in progress when I suspended the meeting last Tuesday. When I suspended it, Mr. Godin had the floor.

Mr. Godin, I give you the floor one more time, so that we can repeat the missing part of the meeting’s live stream.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the opportunity to restart my comments on what you just said.

I want to come back to the fact that when I spoke last week, there were discussions. I won’t repeat exactly what I said when there was a technical problem, but I have to say my understanding was that it’s unusual for us in the Conservative Party of Canada to resist supporting a proposal from my colleague, Mr. Serré, for whom I have a great deal of respect as an individual.

After that comment, I felt that I was inconsistent. It’s important for me to clarify my state of mind.

Now, I think I'm being consistent. When I presented my amendment to Mr. Serré’s motion, point 1 asked for the Minister of Official Languages, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to appear before the committee, for two hours per minister, by November 24, 2022, at the latest.

It was consistent, considering the timing when I tabled that amendment. However, it's November 17 today. The situation has changed. We only have two meetings left after this one. Obviously, the current meeting will not allow us to hear from ministers, because we are discussing procedure.

I remind you, Mr. Chair, that all the uproar, the discussions, the waste of time happened because of a motion tabled by one of my colleagues from the party in power, the Liberal Party of Canada.

So, Mr. Chair, it was quite relevant for me to be uncomfortable with giving quick support to Mr. Serré’s motion last Tuesday. As I said before, I felt insulted. My impression is we’re being hoodwinked. Mathematically, it is impossible to support the motion. As I said earlier, and I just demonstrated, forget about today’s meeting. We’re going to talk about meetings, not time. I consider that to be the problem in this process. So, let’s talk about meetings.

As of November 24, there are two meetings left. We’re being asked to accept point 1, which includes the appearance of four ministers. I must highlight that I appreciate the current government’s openness; it agreed to adding the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In any case, it is now impossible to invite each of the four ministers for two-hour meetings, because there are only two left: November 22 and 24. We would need eight hours for meetings. We are therefore missing two meetings.

At this stage, Mr. Chair, could we hold four meetings by November 24?

My question is for the clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before I give the floor to the clerk, we must consider the context. Point 6, which Mr. Serré wanted to add to his motion last Tuesday, provided for the opportunity to add additional meetings to the schedule in order to achieve this objective. That is what I remember.

Madam Clerk, to answer Mr. Godin’s question, what options do we have?

[The Clerk]

I’m sorry, I’m still resolving technical problems. I missed half of your question.

You want to know if it’s possible for us to hold four meetings before November 24. Was that your question?

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

It was, indeed, Madam Clerk.

Before you answer that, you said you were still resolving technical problems. Can you tell us if the entirety of our deliberations were broadcast publicly from the point at which we restarted?

[The Clerk]

Yes, we are...

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

Are there other technical problems that could infringe on our parliamentary rights?

[The Clerk]

Currently, your connection is unstable. That means the interpreters are struggling to translate what you are saying. That is what we are trying to resolve.

As for your question, off the top of my head, I have no answer, because it is a matter of resources. You would have to ask the party whips.

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

Mr. Chair, I will continue.

First, you said that point 6, moved by Mr. Serré, could influence our thinking. Can Mr. Serré send us this sixth point?

For the moment, this proposal is limited to your interpretation and to what I heard on Tuesday, two days ago. May we have point 6, as moved by Mr. Serré, so that it is clear?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will let Mr. Serré have the floor, but this is not an amendment. We are currently seized with your amendment, and Mr. Beaulieu is next to speak. Because it lends itself to it, I will allow Mr. Serré to explain what he was suggesting last Tuesday regarding point 6.

Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It was clear and it wasn't an amendment. We accepted points 1 to 4 in Mr. Godin’s amendment...

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

You asked me to explain it. Do you want me to do that, or do you want to filibuster?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Wait a moment.

Mr. Godin, you called out Mr. Serré and as Chair, I gave him permission to explain his proposal.

We will come back to you after, Mr. Serré.

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

Mr. Chair, I’m grateful that you gave Mr. Serré the floor, but he doesn't have to filibuster by ascribing motives to us. My question is clear: what is he proposing in point 6?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Serré, what is point 6?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

It provides for additional meetings if required. Other members also proposed it. That means we’d be sure to have the minister and proceed with clause-by-clause study as quickly as possible. The goal of point 6 is therefore to hold additional meetings.

It’s not complicated. I don’t understand Mr. Godin’s question.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I ask all members, whether they are participating in person or virtually, to address the chair when making their arguments.

So, that was a suggestion and not an amendment.

I’ll come back to Mr. Godin, and then Mr. Beaulieu will be able to speak on the points of the amendment.

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

Actually, Mr. Chair, what my colleague just said doesn’t hold water. A few seconds before her answer, the clerk said that it was probably impossible to hold four meetings by November 24. We must take this process seriously. That’s why what I'm saying is relevant. We are out of time. We can’t vote on something that is impossible to do. We must be serious.

I will end my comments there for now, because I think I expressed my intent.

I don’t want to filibuster for no reason, but I do want us to work in a serious way to protect official languages, especially French.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

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

I won’t ask again for Mr. Serré to present his proposal in writing, which is not an amendment. However, based on what he just said, if I remember correctly, point 6 provided for additional meetings by asking the whips to confirm if the required resources were available to do so. However, it is very uncertain, especially since the motion to extend the House’s sitting hours passed the day before yesterday. Indeed, that’s likely to lead to many evening debates lasting until midnight. That often takes resources away from committees. The clerk could give us more information on that.

Moreover, the dates do not, in fact, work in the amendment Mr. Godin moved two weeks ago. Do I have the right to propose a subamendment to change the dates and make the motion more feasible?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No. Based on my understanding of the rules, Mr. Beaulieu, we must proceed in reverse order. We dealt with your subamendment, which was negatived, and now we’re dealing with Mr. Godin’s amendment on Mr. Serré’s motion.

Since it appears obvious to me that there is no unanimous consent for Mr. Serré’s suggestions—I’m talking here about suggestions and not a subamendment—, we are still dealing with Mr. Godin’s amendment. Last Tuesday, we unanimously agreed to deal with it one point at a time.

The debate is therefore still open on the first point of Mr. Godin’s amendment. That’s where we are right now.

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

I have a point of order. My understanding was that I had the right, in this case, to propose an amendment to Mr. Godin’s amendment to make it more feasible.

[The Clerk]

May I interject to offer some clarification?