Evidence of meeting #39 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was meetings.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Mr. Beaulieu, we have all agreed to address your sub-amendment. So let's discuss it and follow the process.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
All right.
To conclude briefly, virtually all the groups that defend the French language in Quebec agree that Bill C‑13 makes no sense and that we can't keep allowing thefederal government to continue anglicizing Quebec. This has become a matter of survival for the French language, and it concerns all of Canada. If we continue weakening French in Quebec, that will have an impact on Canada as a whole.
Yes, we are inspired by Mr. Godin's notice of motion, and that's why I'm keeping an open mind. Make a good faith gesture and vote for the sub-amendment. That will help move things along.
Thank you.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Beaulieu of the Bloc Québécois for saying they've been inspired by my motion.
Now, talking about good faith, we are reaching out to the Liberal Party. I'm reaching out to my Bloc Québécois colleague in an attempt to find some common ground between six and eight meetings. If that's not possible, just to show the Liberal Party that I want to move matters forward, I would be prepared to sacrifice two meetings by lowering the number to six, including four in which we would hear from the ministers.
I will respect by the decision of my colleague, whom I appreciate and who works hard to defend the French language in Quebec. I am working relentlessly to defend the French language and Quebec, but elsewhere in Canada as well.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
We agree on that.
Mr. Chair, I have a procedural question. May I amend my sub-amendment and go back to six meetings instead of eight?
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
In that case, if we have unanimous consent, I would agree to go back to four meetings in order to hear the ministers and two additional meetings to hear the final witnesses. Time is indeed passing, and we're prepared to compromise.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
All right.
Once again, we're discussing Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment, which would be amended to read as follows: "in separate meetings, for four meetings, and that the Committee plan for two additional meetings to hear from the final witnesses."
So the four meetings devoted to the ministers would remain as is and we would go from four additional meetings to two to hear the final witnesses.
Go ahead, Ms. Lattanzio.
November 22nd, 2022 / 12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Patricia Lattanzio Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Could we indicate who the final witnesses would be so that everyone knows, instead of leaving that unclear.
I'd like to have that clarified since Mr. Beaulieu didn't do it.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
No one has clarified how many that would be yet, but I believe we have unanimous consent to call for—
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I think the Power Law lawyers were mentioned.
Go ahead, Mr. Godin.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Here's what I actually said in my notice of motion of November 10: "and two meetings devoted to the appearance of other witnesses, including lawyers from Power Law for two hours, as well as the Association des conseils scolaires des écoles publiques de l’Ontario and other witnesses suggested by the committee members".
Consequently, for the moment, we can't firmly establish the list of witnesses we'll hear from during those two meetings, Ms. Lattanzio. What I just read to you comes from my notice of motion, not Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Yes. Now we need to consider Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment, which doesn't state who the witnesses are. Mr. Beaulieu proposes to amend his own sub-amendment so that, following the four meetings with the ministers, there will be only two meetings for additional witnesses, whom we will have to select here in this committee. He may do so provided there is unanimous consent around the table.
Do we have unanimous consent to amend Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment?
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm going to give my consent to my colleague's proposal.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
All right. So we don't have unanimous consent.
Now we are discussing Mr. Beaulieu's unamended sub-amendment.
Are there any further questions on the amendment of the sub-amendment?
We'll go to a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6, yeas 5)
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Mr. Beaulieu, we agreed that we would continue one sub-amendment at a time.
Now we'll go to your second sub-amendment.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
The text reads as follows: "Amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk in both official languages no later than…"
The second amendment would amend Mr. Godin's amendment. Mr. Serré's motion refers to Thursday, November 7, and that of Mr. Godin Thursday, November 24. In my sub-amendment, I would strike out the passage starting with the words "no later than 5:00 p.m." I would also add the words "the day following the final witnesses."
It would be hard to oppose that. That means that the amendments to Bill C‑13, those of the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Conservatives, would be submitted on the day following the final witnesses. I think that this is simply consistent with the first part of the sub-amendment, and that it's very logical.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Honestly, Mr. Chair, I'm thinking of the people who are watching us at home. We're working on a sub-amendment to change the date from November 17 to November 24 and to add a series of meetings that will conclude the period of testimony. However, the first paragraph hasn't been adopted and we're hearing about the day following the final witnesses, but the main motion contains a date.
I proposed another date in order to push back the process of submitting amendments. The Bloc Québécois proposes a sub-amendment designed to rely more on meetings than on dates. I think that's very smart. Now we're being told that if we act on the basis of meetings, we'll be able to submit our amendments after the final meeting.
Nothing makes any sense in all that. We can't see our way through all of this. So I am reaching out to my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Official Languages, who heads up the team opposite and who has introduced this motion to restart the process. Let's erase it all and start over. We've held five meetings, and there are 23 minutes left in this one, after which we're going to realize that we've wasted another one.
It's true that we've had technical difficulties this week and that we had even worse ones last week. So it's not always the fault of the members of the committee. However, if we want to further the cause of the Acadians, Franco-Ontarians and all francophones in Canada, we have to make decisions. Let's settle our disagreements and start over.
That's my comment on the second amendment to Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment, which would apply to my amendment and to Mr. Serré's motion. That sums it up. Do we know where we stand now?
