Official Languages Committee on Nov. 24th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 40 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of Thursday, June 23, 2022. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

As you will remember, we agreed to suspend the meeting for technical reasons. We are resuming exactly where we left off.

Ms. Ashton had the floor and was preparing to propose…

I will let you say it, Ms. Ashton. The floor is yours.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to know, and to be assured, that suspension criteria and obligations apply when you adjourn the meeting for a technical reason.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No, they do not apply. I told you when we adjourned on Tuesday that I would follow on as though we had just suspended the meeting.

However, from what I understand of the Standing Orders, as committee chair, I don't have to do that; I could start over with the speakers list and pick up where we left off.

As Ms. Ashton had the floor, I will proceed as if we had suspended; that's what I told you when I adjourned Tuesday's meeting.

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

Mr. Chair, I trust you implicitly as committee chair. However, the rule must be clearly applied, and, as parliamentarians, we can't be harmed if we decide to adjourn rather than suspend a meeting.

What's the difference between suspension and adjournment? And how can we protect our rights as parliamentarians?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will begin and perhaps let the clerk provide additional information or correct me.

In the case of a suspension, we stop the clock, but the rules provide that time will resume at the start of the next meeting. Where were we on time? What was going on? Who had the floor? We still continue with the same meeting number. That's the difference between a suspension and an adjournment. When we adjourn the meeting, the current meeting ends and we begin another one when we meet again.

However, technical reasons forced us to adjourn the meeting, not to suspend it. I believe we were on our sixth meeting. It was getting difficult to process the video as a result of all the meetings, which were still part of meeting number 38. There was also the hybrid format problem. I think that one of the main problems is that we change rooms, and, when that happens, the technical side, ParlVu and the rest, is more complicated.

This is normally meeting number 40 today. We are starting a new meeting.

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

So the meeting was officially adjourned. We're starting a new meeting. We were on meeting number 38 for a long time, and that ultimately caused some technical issues, so we adjourned the meeting. Fifteen minutes later, we began a new meeting, but it was number 39. We adjourned once again and are now starting meeting number 40. Otherwise we would have had more technical problems.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's exactly it.

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

All right.

I have another question.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes. It's Mr. Godin's turn, and then it's that of Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Mr. Chair, what's important is that my rights as a parliamentarian be protected. I don't want technical issues to be used to undermine my rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Yes, that's true for everyone.

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

Perhaps we should give unanimous consent, at the end of today's meeting, to the idea of facilitating technical matters. I don't object to cooperating, but I'd like the meeting record to show that it was unanimously decided that we were going to adjourn the meeting, but that we will use suspension procedures at the next meeting.

As you can understand, I want to protect my rights.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That applies to everyone. I think that's what we agreed to and no one objected when I adjourned the meeting on Tuesday.

What I'm saying is that no one objected when I proposed it.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

Going back to the point of order that I raised at the last meeting, Mr. Godin cited the committee record from 2005, I believe, in which the clerk at the time said that we could not limit speaking time. A motion had been introduced to limit members' speaking time to five minutes during cause-by-clause consideration. The clerk said that members' speaking time couldn't be limited without the unanimous consent of the members.

Ultimately, we now find ourselves doing indirectly what we can't do directly—

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chair—

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

If we set a deadline for clause-by-clause consideration, we limit members' speaking time. You answered that you had checked with senior authorities—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a minute, Mr. Beaulieu.

Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I'm just saying that we're discussing the amendment. Mr. Beaulieu's point of order has nothing to do with the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

When I adjourned the meeting, we had agreed to continue the discussion today as though we were continuing the meeting. No one objected to that.

Ms. Ashton had the floor.

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

I thought points of order took priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

What you are adding is further to Mr. Godin's request. He just told us we should ensure that our rights are upheld if we suspend or adjourn a meeting for technical reasons. That's what we had agreed, and it's not a problem.

You are changing the subject. I agree with Mr. Drouin.

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

I don't think so. Ultimately, if what the clerk said during that meeting is true, that means that any attempt to limit this debate reveals an intent to limit debate on clause-by-clause consideration and to set a deadline.

We're going to wind up limiting members' speaking times, and without unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, if worse comes to worst, may I ask you to advance that argument when we come to the specific paragraph of Mr. Godin's amendment concerning clause-by-clause consideration?

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

All right. It will be long and it will render everything else null and void.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Let's allow Ms. Ashton to introduce her sub-amendment because we all agree we're going to address one part at a time. The sub-amendment that Ms. Ashton is preparing to propose must address Mr. Godin's first amendment.

What you're discussing appears a little further on in the motion. Do you agree with me? I'm referring to what you're alleging.