Official Languages Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I understand.

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

I'm asking my colleague whether he wants to withdraw his main motion. That way, my amendment and that of Mr. Beaulieu would also be withdrawn. We'll have to do our work over again based on the meetings, not dates.

Do you see the connection, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

As I said, just so we don't lose our way, we're going to follow the procedure as it was explained. We now have before us Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment, on which we are going to vote. Debate will thus resume on Mr. Beaulieu's amendment to your amendment. We will move on to the next step once we've resolved this.

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

Mr. Chair. I believe that, as a parliamentarian, I have the privilege of being able to reach out to the party opposite to see whether it agrees to withdraw its motions so we can start over and move this matter forward. I'm offering my cooperation. I don't know what the Bloc Québécois or the NDP think of that, but we of the Conservative Party want to advance this matter and cooperate with the other parties; so I am reaching out to my colleagues.

Can you put the question to my colleague and the other members?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

This is a good sign, and I understand you loud and clear, but to do that, we always have to start with the last motion introduced. So we have to consider the sub-amendment before addressing the amendment.

Mr. Beaulieu, since we're talking about you, what do you have to say?

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

I'd like to clarify one point. Some people are accusing us of engaging in obstruction and delaying the committee's work, but, if no motion had been introduced to limit debate at the clause-by-clause consideration stage and virtually to conclude hearings of witnesses, we wouldn't have wasted all this time. That's not our objective. Once again, I'm reaching out tothe government and to the NDP and asking them to vote for my sub-amendment. Then we will have made another step toward solving the problem.

I'd like to suggest that everyone attend the next meeting in person because we have to resolve this situation and it would be easier to do it that way because we'd be able to speak to each other directly. I'll have a chance to introduce a motion on the subject later on. At any event, I encourage people to vote for this sub-amendment. It would be a first step toward resolving the situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

Ms. Ashton actually requested the floor before I did.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Pardon me, Ms. Ashton; go ahead.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm trying to follow the committee's process as we prepare to vote on Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment. I intend to propose changes to Mr. Godin's amendments to reflect the fact that, as a result of systematic obstruction, the dates aren't enough. However, we have to deal with Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment first before I can move that amendment. So I'm eager to continue the process that we have to follow.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Ms. Ashton. You're absolutely right.

Mr. Godin, the floor is yours.

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

Mr. Chair, as I mentioned earlier, it's important to work on the basis of a number of meetings. The sub-amendment that the Bloc Québécois has introduced, which is inspired by the motion that I made on November 10, is commendable. I'd be prepared to vote for that sub-amendment if Mr. Beaulieu reduced the number of meetings from eight to six to make it consistent with my notice of motion.

This demonstrates the willingness of the Conservative Party of Canada to move matters forward without engaging in obstruction and to cooperate with all members of the committee so we can deal with this matter as soon as possible.

I say "as soon as possible", but I should also say that whatever is worth doing at all is worth doing well, to quote the three authors of the letter published in Le Devoir this morning.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Godin.

Go ahead, Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Senate has already done a study and submitted a report. We've wasted five meetings. Mr. Chair, follow the process regarding amendments.

The Conservative-Bloc coalition has merely submitted amendment after amendment.

Follow the process, and we will vote. We're flexible; we proved that two weeks ago. We were ready to accept the dates that Mr. Godin proposed, and then we continued with another meeting. We've heard from 6,000 stakeholders on the action plan and they told us we should pass the bill as soon as possible. The Association canadienne-française de l'Alberta, or ACFA, and the Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, the AFO, told us we should proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. Since 2019, we've proposed the white paper, Bill C‑32 and Bill C‑13. Stakeholders want us to proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.

I really don't understand what's going on. I'm being told to withdraw my motion without the other sub-amendments being voted upon. We have to follow the process. We're prepared to vote on an amendment. I encourage the members here today to vote for the sub-amendments. That way, we'll be following the process and can then move on to my motion. We're flexible on dates, as we've previously said.

We can't get there because there's been systematic obstruction over the past five meetings. Don't tell me we're wasting meetings. We've already wasted five. That's enough.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Very well. If I understand what's being said around the table, Mr. Beaulieu has a sub-amendment, Mr. Gordon has an amendment to your motion, Mr. Serré, and they're telling us they're ready to be more efficient and move matters along if they have some flexibility. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Beaulieu and Mr. Gordon. That's also your position, Mr. Serré, as I see it.

As I understand it, you're telling us you're prepared to amend the first paragraph of your motion to change the dates.

I don't know if we want to discuss that first, but let's consider the matter paragraph by paragraph starting with the main motion, that is to say Mr. Serré's motion.

If we focus on the first paragraph and agree on the dates, can we amend it by unanimous consent? Absolutely. Otherwise, we'll proceed by sub-amendments, amendments and votes. Time is passing; it's 12:25 p.m.

With your permission, I now give the floor to Mr. Serré regarding the first paragraph. On what date would everyone agree?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, before selecting dates, let's put the sub-amendments on the table. If we resolve the sub-amendments, then we can discuss my motion. We still have some amendments and numerous sub-amendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Absolutely. I meant that if we had unanimous consent on a specific date, we could do that and it would go very quickly. However, if we don't have unanimous consent, we'll proceed one sub-amendment at a time.

All right. Let's go back to the sub-amendments. I don't think there's unanimous consent there. Let's consider the sub-amendments one at a time.

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

I requested the floor, but I yielded to my friend Mr. Serré.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, but I think Mr. Beaulieu was just before you. I think I saw—

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

I did it long before him; I yielded the floor to Mr. Serré. I don't want to violate my colleague's right to speak. We haven't formed a coalition. I do want to allow requests for the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I thought I saw Mr. Beaulieu first, but I'll give you the floor since he's in agreement.

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

Actually, Mr. Chair, to show our goodwill, I just reached out to the party opposite so we can understand all this and start over. That's what I wanted to do. Now I believe the Liberal Party doesn't want that. It wants to waste our time. In addition, the five meetings that Mr. Serré accuses us of wasting followed the introduction of his motion.

Look at where everything that's going on started. I won't take the blame for that, and I'd like people not to accuse us of engaging in systematic obstruction. I'd like the people opposite not to use the term "systematic obstruction" because that's not what we're doing. What we want to do is work for the French language and defend bilingualism in Canada. Bilingualism is English and French.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair. The exact term is "filibustering".

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, that's what is called in the regulations.

Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours.

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

I'd like to say two things.

First, the compromise that Mr. Serré has proposed misses the whole point. Our main reason for opposing it in this way is, to repeat what Mr. Godin said, that the Liberal-New Democrat coalition, which goes far beyond the scope of this committee, has limited clause-by-clause consideration. We can agree with the Conservatives on certain matters, but on an ad hoc basis. If Mr. Serré had proposed amending that part of the motion, the entire situation would have been quite different.

Second, Mr. Serré said that organizations such as the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, wanted an expedited debate on Bill C‑13, but that's not the case in Quebec because the Official Languages Act merely anglicizes Quebec. That absolutely has to change.

In response to what Mr. Serré said earlier, I would add that, in another open letter, the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Montréal, which is the oldest—