Official Languages Committee on Nov. 29th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I've noted that this is in the first paragraph as amended by Ms. Ashton.

What you're saying isn't a point of order. However, that's part of the first paragraph.

You have the floor, Mr. Godin.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to go back to Mr. Serré's comment.

When Mr. Serré raises a point of order, he may not cite people or members who have spoken in the House of Commons. That's not a point of order; it's part of a debate. So I would simply like to note that.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

You are correct. However, you have to hear the rest of the sentence in order to know what a member is going to say. You guessed where he was headed. As chair, however, I can't take the liberty of guessing.

I want us to get along. I am very permissive. At any event, according to the usual rule, debates are better when they are more permissive than restrictive. Once again, if we repeat ourselves, that will be a first strike, a second strike, but there won't be a third straight. We after stick to the amendment we're debating.

That being said, if someone raises a point of order, he or she may begin with an incidental remark before returning to the actual point of order. I nevertheless have to let that person speak so I can guess what will follow.

As one of my teachers once said, sometimes I have rambunctious classes, but we always love our rambunctious students. However, I'm not singling out anyone in particular.

Go ahead, Mr. Beaulieu.

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

That's excellent, Mr. Chair.

Sometimes it's hard to stay on track when you're being interrupted.

The rule that debates should be more permissive than restrictive is one of the parliamentary rules and allows for more democracy. It affords a tool for the opposition parties in getting themselves heard and expressing a point of view. However, Quebec's point of view hasn't been heard for 52 years. During clause-by-clause consideration, it will be critical that we conduct a thorough debate. If we adopt the date of December 6, 2022, we will only have a few minutes in which to proceed with clause-by-close consideration. We won't have the time to explain it.

We noted that health was a provincial jurisdiction, and that's highly relevant. However, what I'm talking about are the measures that the federal government has taken under the Official Languages Act. So that's absolutely relevant to the debate. We'll have to discuss it during clause-by-clause consideration.

Now turning from the health sector to access to justice, I don't think the Minister of Justice was even one of the four ministers we had to consult at the Treasury Board. Once again, there are some major problems there, and, once again, it's the federal government that's funding groups. I'd like to hear the answers and the Minister of Canadian Heritage on the fact that these groups are using a whole—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will stop you there, Mr. Beaulieu. That has been dealt with; it was voted upon. According to Ms. Ashton's sub-amendment, we know exactly which ministers will be appearing and for how many hours. That's more than three strikes.

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

I'd just ask you to let me finish my sentence.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No, not this time.

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

We have to be able to address this aspect in the clause-by-clause consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

No, I won't give you the floor.

I give the floor to Mr. Godin.

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

I'm going to request the right to speak later.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Actually, so that we can find our bearings, I'm going to repeat a expression that was previously used: "We can't make heads or tails out of this."

I want everybody to be on the same page. We have to understand that we're considering Ms. Ashton's sub-amendments, under which one-hour meetings would be held with four ministers before December 1.

I remind committee members that today is November 29, which means that we would be having four ministers and their officials appear this Thursday for one hour each. That's impossible.

It's also proposed that the amendments be submitted before December 2. However, we haven't heard from the ministers yet. Once again, this is unrealistic.

I'm still referring to Ms. Ashton's sub-amendments, which propose that we proceed with clause-by-cause consideration on December 6.

On November 1, I submitted an amendment in response to the motion by Mr. Serré, who had submitted it on November 1.

We are currently dealing with Mr. Serré's motion. As you know, we are considering Mr. Godin's amendments, Ms. Ashton's sub-amendments and Mr. Beaulieu's sub-amendment.

In point 2 of his motion, Mr. Serré proposes that amendments to Bill C‑13 be submitted to the clerk no later than November 17 at 5:00 p.m. and that the clerk distribute the amendments to us by noon on November 18.

In point 4 of his motion, Mr. Serré also proposes that the committee proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill no later than Tuesday, November 22.

I remind you once again that today is November 29.

In point 5 of his motion, Mr. Serré proposes that if the committee has not completed the by clause-by-clause consideration by noon on December 1, we will simply stop debate and proceed to a vote amendment by amendment without further debate.

I'm reaching out to the members of the committee: I request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendments so we can move this matter forward.

Once again, what's going on here is partisanship on both sides, and we're all accusing each other of obstruction and so on.

We aren't moving forward. It's absolutely senseless that we're still dealing with these amendments today. This is the seventh meeting that we've held since Mr. Serré introduced his motion.

I actually have two requests to make of the committee.

First, I request unanimous consent to withdraw my amendments.

I am being transparent here. I said so last week. I reached out. I want to resolve this situation because we aren't working efficiently.

Second, I request unanimous consent for us to work in subcommittee.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Just a moment, Mr. Godin. I was discussing your first request, but we have technical issues. So I'll come back to that later.

What is your second request, Mr. Godin?

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

My second request is that I be granted the unanimous consent of the committee for us to meet in subcommittee, that is to say with a representative of each of the parties. I mentioned this at the last meeting. This would enable us to work together toward a resolution so we can find common ground on which to score a win for the French language.

So those are my two requests to the committee for unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

There is a technical problem with your first request.

We are going to ask for the unanimous consent of the committee, even though it's a bit of a grey area, because an amendment to which subamendments have already been moved and voted on is being withdrawn.

I see Ms. Ashton's hand is up on this point. I would like to hear Ms. Ashton's comments on this.

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

First, I would like to say I am happy to be here and see you in person again.

We would like to continue studying the amendments. I would like to reiterate that we still support all the subamendments we have made. As I said, our message is clear: we want to move forward on this and we want to improve Bill C‑13.

I am concerned about the fact that we were closing the door to certain proposals when we still recognize everyone's right to express their views.

The subamendments we proposed are intended to move the bill forward and improve it as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you.

I would like to say something else about your first request, Mr. Godin.

That makes twice that a request for unanimous consent has been made. Unanimous consent was refused at the last meeting. So it is kind of out of order.

However, since you are talking about unanimous consent and your second point dealt with the committee meeting as a subcommittee, that is, the official subcommittee of this committee, I would ask whether there is consent...

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

Before doing that, Mr. Chair, I would like to say that I understand my colleague's comment and that I have the same objective as she has, to move the matter forward.

However, in Ms. Ashton's amendment that we approved, that we voted against but the Liberals and New Democrats voted for, it says December 1. Mathematically, that doesn't work.

We can't do what that motion says. It's a matter of common sense. So I am asking all committee members. Forget partisanship. Can we find common ground?

As I have done several times, I am reaching out to committee members. I also proposed, referring to my notice of motion on November 10 regarding meetings, that we wipe the slate clean and start over, because at this point the dates are the stumbling block. We're working, but we're going in circles. It isn't moving forward. Whom is this serving? I ask.

Mr. Chair, I urge you to put the question to the members of the committee to ascertain whether we can get unanimous consent.

Can we get unanimous consent, either on that or on going to work in subcommittee or on any other productive proposal, to make some progress on the cause of French and improve Bill C‑13, without being gagged?

I think that's what is most important. It's the only sticking point.

We moderated our approach. We wanted to reduce the list of our witnesses. We wanted to shorten the window for testimony.

We did win something: the testimony of the Minister of Heritage. However, he will not be able to come because it will be over on December 1.

We have two hours left at the next meeting, and it will certainly not be today, because the Minister was not on the calendar. The officials are not in the room. We are going in circles.

I am therefore calling on all committee members for us to be able to find a solution, resolve the situation and start working on improving Bill C‑13.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I won't repeat what I said to you concerning your first suggestion.

However, with respect to the second one, there is a request for unanimous consent for us to return to subcommittee.

That is what I have understood.

Just before doing that, I see that Mr. Drouin wants to speak.

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

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

I would just like to make sure I understand what my colleague is saying correctly.

If we take away all our amendments and we have unanimous consent, he is suggesting that we return to subcommittee.

The only thing I would like to say is that there is nothing to prevent members from working outside this formal place and presenting that.

At the moment, the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security and the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage are being obstructed.

I am not doubting my colleague, but there is certainly an order from on high for there to be obstruction in all parliamentary committees. Nothing is moving at the moment...

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

Point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

...in Parliament. I simply do not want us to return to subcommittee to waste our time. If we want to listen to one another, we can listen to one another.

What I am suggesting is to make a collaboration motion even before suspending the amendments. Then we can go back to common ground. So Ms. Ashton might agree to withdraw her subamendments and Mr. Serré might agree to withdraw his own motion.

Otherwise, we are going to go in circles, whether here or in subcommittee.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I need to understand what you have just said, Mr. Drouin.

I think it's important.

Mr. Godin, it does seem to be related to what you are asking us to do.

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

I would like to say something, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Before giving you the floor, I want to understand what Mr. Drouin has just explained.

Mr. Drouin, are you saying that we should meet again, this committee, outside the official committee, that is, outside this place?