Evidence of meeting #52 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.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
It seems to me that a meeting requested under Standing Order 106(4) can take place outside a normal meeting. So we don't have to consider it, as you have chosen to do, to be a normal meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I didn't choose it, Mr. Beaulieu. That is how it works, according to the comments we have heard.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I am told that a meeting requested under Standing Order 106(4) can take place outside a normal meeting. It is an emergency meeting. So it should not be considered to be a normal meeting. If we consider that there was an hour and a half left, to finish the eight meetings scheduled before the initial motion, and we add two meetings, that makes four meetings.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
If I understand Mr. Godin's calculation correctly, we are talking about adding three and a half meetings, if there are no technical problems.
Is that right, Mr. Godin? Are we talking about adding six and a half hours?
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
In fact, I proposed seven hours, but my colleague is saying six and a half hours.
We need to verify with Ms. Ashton whether that achieves the objective of her amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
The committee can do whatever it wants in terms of unanimity.
Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.
NDP
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
Mr. Chair, I just want to be sure of something. We have not yet seen the motion.
Has it been circulated? If so, that's fine.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I can agree to us having four more meetings, but what is important is that we be able to debate clause 54.
Liberal
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
If there are four meetings, but we do nothing to make sure that clause 54 is considered, we will not be able to do it, and the opposition parties that support the application of Bill 101 to federal businesses will not be able to get that done.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, in fact, my colleague is right.
In the motion I am proposing, I refer to clause 54. Ms. Ashton's motion refers to the number of meetings, but she says nothing about clause 54. After adopting her amendment, we can vote on the motion, which will provide for fewer meetings, in accordance with Ms. Ashton's motion. Then, clause 54 will be considered, and if people want to vote in favour, they will do so. If they want to vote against, they will do so.
We shall see who wants to talk about clause 54.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Mr. Godin, I'm going to make sure we are talking about the same thing. We are talking about six and a half additional hours in addition to debate on section 54 at the end.
Is that what you are proposing?
Are there other comments on this subject?
Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
On this point, my support is for the six and a half hours.
In terms of procedure, I don't know how that affects specific clauses. Obviously, we know that it's an important clause.
I think we need to add hours in order to complete our consideration at this point.
NDP
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Does everyone understand what Ms. Ashton just said?
Mr. Godin, we are not talking about the same thing.
If there are no further questions, I will call the vote.
Liberal
Marc Serré Liberal Nickel Belt, ON
I just want to understand something. We are now voting on Ms. Ashton's amendment.
Is that right?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I will repeat.
We have to start with the vote on Ms. Ashton's amendment, which proposes to add six and a half additional hours, nothing more.
Bloc
Liberal
