Evidence of meeting #40 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 ashton.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Great.
The clerk has just sent it to your P9 accounts.
I believe everyone has now received Ms. Ashton's second sub-amendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
We have until December 1 to submit our amendments. As we've already said, this is a long and complex bill, probably the longest of the reforms of the Official Languages Act.
The bill is so complex that I've even requested the opinion of a lawyer. He examined the bill and found that it has several vulnerabilities if a gag order is imposed. He told me that a month or two ago. He anticipated the threat of a gag order.
Certain clauses in the bill would retroactively amend previous sections. We could adopt certain amendments concerning, for example, the new act respecting federally regulated private businesses. If we adopt certain amendments at the outset, we might wind up with a new bill that would retroactively amend previous amendments. It's very complicated.
The imposition of a gag order would leave us very vulnerable because we would have to work quickly. We would have very little opportunity to hear from the ministers in order to gather food for thought and propose amendments.
Imposing a gag order on clause-by-clause consideration would merely gain a little time for those not wanting to amend the act. If we don't have time to examine all the amendments properly and adopt certain amendments toward the end, we may well undo what was previously done. It would be very difficult to make the desired changes.
I think we have to take the time to present our amendments well so we can establish matches. That way, when we adopt an amendment, we can advise people that it will change amendment "X" a little further on. It's quite complex work.
It's really unfortunate that we're being rushed and that attempts are being made to limit the time allowed for something this important.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.
As there are no more speakers on this subject, we will go to the vote.
(Sub-amendment agreed to: yeas 10, nays 1)
12:30 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
I'm very surprised to see we're moving ahead.
I want to thank my colleagues for adopting this sub-amendment.
I'm not proposing any amendment to the third paragraph.
In the fourth paragraph, I propose the following wording: "the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 11:00 p.m. ET".
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
So it's just the date of December 6 that changes. Is that correct?
12:30 p.m.
NDP
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
The time was already in Mr. Godin's amendment.
Paragraph 3 of Mr. Godin's amendment remains intact.
The fourth paragraph of Mr. Godin's amendment would be amended.
Mr. Godin has the floor.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
I want to be sure that all committee members receive the sub-amendment in writing. Otherwise we'll have to start over.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Like teachers, sometimes we even love the the most unruly students.
I take it for granted that everyone has received the sub-amendment in writing. I see heads nodding.
The third sub-amendment is in fact the proposed sub-amendment to Mr. Godin's fourth paragraph.
Mr. Godin, you wanted to speak. We are listening.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I have nothing against anglophones, but I want to defend the French language.
"That the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Tuesday, December 6".
I want to be consistent. What will happen between December 1 and December 6? I would prefer that this provision be replaced by a meeting rather than a date, that is to say "the meeting following the final appearance of the ministers". We don't know if that will be on December 6. We will be coming back and wasting our time again.
Let's make our work easier. Ms. Ashton said she was surprised, but we have the same objective: to move the matter forward. She need not be surprised when the proposals are acceptable. We have to understand that, when we're in committee, we have to give and we also have to expect that the other parties will be receptive.
I'm uncomfortable with the idea of setting a specific date. I agree that, following the motion we just voted on, we should proceed to the meeting following the final appearance of the four ministers.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I would like a clarification.
As I understand it, this applies to paragraph 4.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Would that mean that clause-by-clause consideration would begin on December 6 or conclude on December 6?
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Clause-by-clause consideration would begin no later than December 6.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I don't agree with that because we may not be able to hear from a minister if there's a vote or an emergency debate until midnight. That sort of thing often prevents committees from sitting the next day.
Furthermore, with the new motion that was adopted, we no longer need unanimous consent to extend debate; we only need the support of one party. So it's conveniently the Liberals who will control the timetable, together with the NDP. As that could well happen frequently between now and the end of the session, we might not be able to hold any meetings with the ministers. If that happens once, it will further limit the time allotted for the ministers to appear.
So if we want to have each minister for at least one hour, that will take two sessions. So we should say that clause-by-clause consideration will begin after two sessions with the ministers.
I don't know whether my colleague would agree to amend her sub-amendment to refer to meetings rather than dates. Otherwise we may not be able to hear from the ministers or to hear only a few. If we're lucky, we'll have one session out of two. In that case, certain ministers won't be heard. As I said earlier, it's very important that we speak to all the ministers.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Mr. Beaulieu, I have to inform you that it is out of order for the person who has proposed an amendment to amend it on the fly.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I think one point is missing from your response. It's possible if we have unanimous consent.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I see that Ms. Ashton has raised her hand, Mr. Godin. So I will let Mr. Beaulieu finish, then give the floor to Ms. Ashton.
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
We could request unanimous consent if Ms. Ashton is in agreement.
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
Some good arguments have been advanced. Since my intention was obviously for us to hear from each minister for one hour, it's essential that we keep that. Considering what's happening, I acknowledge that could get complicated.
If we have unanimous consent, I suggest that we retain the spirit of that amendment but clarify it with the following wording: "the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration no later than the meeting following the two meetings with the ministers and their officials."
That way we would ensure that we have each minister for one hour, which would take up two meetings. Then we would move on to clause-by-clause consideration in the next meeting.
That's almost exactly what I had proposed, but it guarantees that we'll spend one hour with each of the four ministers and their officials.