Official Languages Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2022

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

Mr. Chair. With your permission, I'm going to consult the notes that my outstanding team have prepared for me.

I want to provide some historical context.

In 2005, the Standing Committee on Official Languages was chaired by none other than the present Minister of Canadian Heritage, Pablo Rodriguez. At the time, the committee was discussing the parliamentary right of committee members to discuss and attempt to improve a bill. On Thursday, October 20, 2005, the committee conducted the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

I'd like to read certain passages from the record of that committee. I won't read all five pages because that would be too long.

Maurice Vellacott said:

Let's ask the clerk this question, then. Can we not set limits in terms of speaking times for individuals? We're trying to expedite the bill here.

A little further on, the clerk at the time, Susan Baldwin, responded as follows:

If the committee wished to do that, they could do that, but I don't think you could limit the number of rounds that person has. The only way you can impose a time limit on consideration of a bill in committee is with a time allocation motion from the House.

If that's what they want, they need only go to the House of Commons, but they'll have to bear the blame for silencing members of Parliament. I'll continue reading:

The whole point of the committee system—and this is largely to the advantage of the opposition parties—is that they have time to completely, thoroughly, and in detail, discuss all that they wish on the line-by-line, clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. In fact, this is the only time the House has that possibility. It's very carefully not circumscribed, so that the members will have as much time as they need.

A little further on, Ms. Baldwin said:

If the entire committee agrees, perhaps, but you're not supposed to have time limits.

I think that, if we surveyed the members, we'd see that not all members want time limits.

Further on, Mr. Vellacott added:

So the part of the motion in respect to having hereafter five minutes total per member on an amendment or a subamendment, I believe...even so, the other clerks would find that this is in order. It's just that the committee, being the master of its own destiny, can do that.

And Ms. Baldwin responded as follows:

The advice I would give to the chair on that matter is that this, in effect, is not in order.

I would recall that it was Pablo Rodriguez who chaired the meeting. Today he is the Minister of Canadian Heritage. A little earlier, the Liberals voted in favour of a motion for the minister to testify before the committee.

Mr. Vellacott responded as follows:

Well, if you consulted with your other clerks, you would find the—

Then the clerk said:

We have discussed this.

Further on, she came back with the following:

Committees are not allowed to impose closure on a bill. They can't put a deadline on it. What they can do is do schedules, and there's a nice fine line between those two things. My feeling is that if you limit each member to five minutes and one round on a clause, all you have to do is do your number of members, each with five minutes, and multiply by the number of clauses, and you have, in effect, imposed a hard and fast deadline on the committee that cuts off debate, and the entire point of having a bill in committee is to allow everybody to have their say.

To which Mr. Vellacott replied:

There's no reference to it, and we have in committees in the past. The committee, being master of its own destiny, can impose totality time limits per clause and per amendment.

To which, the clerk responded:

I'm sure there were times when committees have done that. I'm not sure necessarily that it was a proper precedent.

So, Mr. Chair, I wanted to bring this to your attention because it's important. As a parliamentarian, I feel pressed because a very restrictive timetable is being imposed on us, particularly since Mr. Serré's motion contains dates that have already passed.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

According to what my colleague Mr. Godin just said, a clerk previously claimed that the committee didn't have the authority to limit debate on clause-by-clause consideration and that that could only be done by means of a time allocation motion in the House of Commons. Is my understanding correct?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

At the risk of being corrected by the clerk, the committees are free to act as they wish and to introduce the motions they wish to introduce. They must then debate and adopt them. The committee is therefore master of its own destiny, as it were.

We have motions on the table: the main motion, an amendment and sub-amendments. We're working on them, and the committee will decide the fate of Mr. Serré's motion democratically and in accordance with parliamentary rules.

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

I wanted to introduce a motion that established an order of priority among the amendments. I wanted us to give priority to those from Quebec, and I was told that we had no right to do so, that it wasn't in order.

Is it in order for a committee to want to limit debate on clause-by-clause consideration, as Mr. Serré's motion proposes?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Two points require clarification here, since the public is watching us.

First, regarding the amendment you wanted to introduce, I recall very clearly that part of that amendment was admissible because it concerned the main motion or Mr. Godin's amendment but that the other part was unrelated.

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

That's the reason I was given.

The intent of my motion at the time was to give priority in clause-by-clause consideration to the amendments requested by the Government of Quebec and by the francophone and Acadian communities. I was told that the committee wasn't entitled to alter the order in which the clauses were considered and that we would have to follow the order in which they were presented in the bill under consideration, Bill C‑13, in this instance.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, that was one of the reasons, but it was also because the change you wanted to make was unrelated to any amendment. None of the changes proposed in Mr. Godin's amendment and no aspect of the main motion addressed that. Consequently, it was inadmissible from the get‑go because there was no connection.

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

I don't think that's the answer that was given. There's a connection because Mr. Serré's motion would limit clause-by-clause consideration as of a certain date, and my amendment would have given priority to the Quebec government's amendments because they hadn't been discussed and weren't included in Bill C‑13.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will check that and get back to you.

As for your second question, Mr. Serré's motion is a motion. It wasn't the committee that decided.

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

What I understood from what Mr. Godin read is that the clerk at the time said that clause-by-clause consideration couldn't be limited by a mere committee motion. That could only be done by means of a time attribution motion in the House of Commons. Please tell me if I misunderstood.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I'll repeat what I understand as best I can. The committee is free to make whatever motions it wishes. We debate them in committee. The clerk tells me that Mr. Serré's motion was verified by the highest authorities. Nothing in that motion is prohibited by our rules of procedure, quite the contrary.

Consequently, all that remains for us is to debate your sub-amendments. We have to do that, and we must proceed in reverse order. First, there was Mr. Serré's motion, then there was Mr. Godin's amendment to that motion and, lastly, there are your sub-amendments, and that's where we stand, since we're starting with the sub-amendments. Once we've disposed of your sub-amendments, we'll move on to Mr. Godin's amendment and then to the main motion, which may be debated and agreed to, negatived or amended. The committee is free to do that, in accordance with our parliamentary rules. That's democracy.

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

If I correctly understand what you're saying, clause-by-clause consideration may be limited by a committee motion, as Mr. Serré's motion stated.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's correct, if the members of the committee have indicated their agreement by vote.

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

We could therefore alter the order of the clauses addressed in clause-by-clause consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No.

Thank you for reminding me, Madam Clerk.

We've discussed that. Standing Order 75.1 prohibits it from being done that way.

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

However, the Standing Orders nevertheless impose limits on what the committee can do.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's correct with respect to clause-by-clause consideration.

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

However, the committee may decide to limit clause-by-clause consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Are you referring to time?

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

That's correct in this case; we're talking about a time limit.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, indeed.

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, in view of what I read from the 2005 committee meeting, is the committee's unanimous consent required in order to gag us, that is to say to limit time for clause-by-clause consideration?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Serré's motion is admissible.

To answer your question, all the clauses in Mr. Serré's motion are admissible. They may be obsolete today as they pertain to dates, but it is the committee that decides that.

It's like in Parliament, where we don't always agree on bills. We vote, and the majority carries the matter.

In short, this motion is admissible point by point, and we will have to vote on every one of its points.

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

Mr. Chair, I have two points I want to raise. First, must the committee decide unanimously to limit debate on clause-by-clause consideration?