Official Languages Committee on May 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Serré's hand was raised.

Go ahead, Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

I have a point of order.

Regarding the application of the Standing Orders, Standing Order 116 (1) states:

(1) In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the standing orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Regarding the end of debate, Standing Order 116(2)a) states:

Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.

So I would ask you to consider those factors, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Thank you, Mr. Serré. That is one of the first times someone has raised a point of order by quoting a specific standing order. The standing order states that debate may continue as long as there are amendments to a motion. That is the argument you were making, isn't it, Mr. Serré?

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Okay.

I am ready to hear—

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

Mr. Chair, you ruled that what Mr. Serré proposed was inadmissible. If he does not agree with your decision, let him request a vote to contest your decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Beaulieu, please let me finish what I am saying. You are the next person on the list to speak.

I have ruled on the matter, but I am not halting debate on amendments or subamendments. All MPs have the right to speak to propose them.

Yet the subamendment your proposed, Mr. Serré, is inadmissible because it is out of context of the motion proposed and the events that led to that motion being proposed.

That does not stop anyone from proposing other amendments or subamendments. The debate is still open and, for as long as MPs have something to say about it, it is my duty to listen to them.

Mr. Beaulieu, is that the argument you wanted to make?

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

Precisely.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Fine, that's great.

Does anyone else wish to speak to Mr. Généreux's amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Serré.

[Marc Serré, Liberal, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I just want some clarification on the changes that we are about to make to the motion. Which amendment are we talking about? I proposed a subamendment, but we still have Mr. Généreux's amendment and Mr. Beaulieu's subamendment. I would like you to clarify how we will proceed.

As I said earlier, regarding the apologies made by MPs, what Mr. Beaulieu said is not true. Mr. Drouin spoke to the media yesterday and apologized several times. Moreover, Conservative MPs serving on other committees have outright insulted witnesses in the past and there were no consequences.

As to what is happening here at our committee, I have a lot of trouble with the way the opposition is attacking Mr. Drouin, who is in fact a proud francophone.

When there are facts, they have to be looked at closely. While it was initially inadmissible under parliamentary procedure, the motion calls for Mr. Drouin to apologize. Yet he did apologize to journalists. There are even some journalists present in the room who are aware of this. Mr. Beaulieu can go ask the journalists present himself. We have to look at the facts and focus on the facts. This debate is really politically motivated.

I will stop here, but I find what the opposition is doing very problematic.

We are talking about a person who spoke with passion at a committee meeting and said things that others have in fact also said. Other witnesses have indeed said similar things. I think we have to be careful. In my opinion, it is not true that Mr. Drouin is not a defender of the francophonie all over the world. It is not right to use this incident for political advantage. What the Prime Minister said is true. I completely agree with what Liberal ministers have said in recent days.

In my opinion, the other subamendment is inadmissible, but the committee challenged that decision. In any case, we have to continue to make sure that we look at the facts before we amend the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

According to the order of speakers on my list, I will give the floor to Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Drouin and then Mr. Samson. Before we continue this debate, however, I would like to provide some clarifications so the committee does not get off track.

Mr. Godin proposed a motion. Mr. Généreux proposed an amendment to Mr. Godin's motion. Mr. Généreux's amendment was amended by Mr. Beaulieu's subamendment.

Listen carefully to what I have to say about procedure.

I have made a decision as to the admissibility of the motion. To that end, I quoted the procedural rules of the House. The chair's decision was overturned and I have no problem with that. That will have to be reported to the House of Commons.

We voted on Mr. Beaulieu's subamendment. That is done and finished.

Mr. Beaulieu, do you have the documents now?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I will read the text of the motion as it stands right now, taking into account the amendments adopted.

Given the unacceptable remarks made by the Member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell towards witnesses Frédéric Lacroix and Nicolas Bourdon during the meeting of the Standing Committee on Official Languages on May 6, 2024, and that the Member has withdrawn his remarks but has not apologized. It is resolved that the committee: a) requests the Member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell to apologize to witnesses Frédéric Lacroix and Nicolas Bourdon as well as to the members of the Committee; b) acknowledges that the data presented by witnesses in support of their testimony is based on science; c) recognizes that such behaviour is not worthy of the position of parliamentarian or president of a parliamentary association; d) demands that Francis Drouin issue a written apology to the witnesses; e) demand the immediate removal of the Member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell from the committee; f) requests the immediate resignation of the Member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell as Chair of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie; g) requests the immediate resignation of the Member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell as international Chair of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie; h) reports to the House on this intolerable situation.

So far, we have adopted Mr. Beaulieu's subamendment, which corresponds to points b), c) and d). We now have to decide on Mr. Généreux's amendment as amended. Points b), c), d) and e) originally contained in the amendment now correspond to points e), f), g) and h).

Is everyone on the same page?

In my humble opinion, some elements are quite redundant, but that is the text we are discussing.

Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor to speak to Mr. Généreux's amendment.

Then it will be Mr. Drouin's turn, then Mr. Samson's. And Mr. Serré just added his name to the list.

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

I think we could argue for a long time. Having said that, the points of view have been expressed, so I am asking for a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

That's what I've been explaining for a while now. As long as there are people who want to discuss amendments or subamendments, we can't call a vote.

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

No, but we can suggest it.

I would point out that Ms. Lambropoulos withdrew from the committee for much less than that. She just called into question the decline of French.

As for Mr. Serré, he has constantly been downplaying Mr. Drouin's comments.

I personally have never heard any other witness use the same expression to describe other witnesses.

I get the impression that the Liberals are going to filibuster to save time and avoid voting on the motion. I would encourage us to move to a vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to inform the committee that, as I did earlier, I apologized four times yesterday. I would invite members of the committee to look at the transcript of events just before caucus.

With regard to the motion, I have a question for my colleagues Mr. Beaulieu and Mr. Godin: Do they think the word “incompetent” is accepted in parliamentary language to refer to another parliamentarian?

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Of course, I would have liked to hear what my colleagues had to say about this. It would have been interesting.

I am disappointed that this incident is being used for political purposes. I don't know how many times a person can apologize, but I know that this morning, at the beginning of the meeting, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell made a very official apology and that the members of the committee heard it. Then a motion was moved calling for the member to apologize, even though that had already been done. So we're playing political games here.

It's too bad, as the minister was here. Getting a minister to appear before the committee is not easy. He was here for an hour when we were finishing the study on funding for post-secondary institutions today, but we were not able to discuss that with him. What are we going to do? The minister will not be able to come before the committee in the next five weeks. So we won't be able to complete our study on post-secondary institutions, a topic suggested by Mr. Beaulieu.

This study is extremely important for the francophonie, for Quebeckers and for francophones outside Quebec. It's part of the continuum. As you know, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was signed in 1982, established the right to education in the minority language. Now, the government is being open and understands that, in principle, the right to education in French in Canada begins at birth and continues until the end of our days. Finally, we can take concrete action to make people understand, as I have already explained several times, that education is a key element for a society. We have a responsibility to ensure that those who have that right are able to exercise it.

It was Mr. Beaulieu who suggested this extremely important topic for us to study. We've heard from witnesses on this issue. A lot of worthwhile arguments have been made. I think the minister would have had the opportunity to comment on certain elements and probably could have guided us. For example, some of the witnesses we've heard from in this committee have asked to look at the possibility of creating a mechanism that would enable the federal government to provide funding directly—

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Samson, how is all this related to Mr. Généreux's amendment, particularly points e), f), g) and h), which call for the immediate removal of the committee member, his immediate resignation as chair of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, his immediate resignation—

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Chair, I am in the process of explaining this point to you further. It's very clear.

As I explained, Mr. Drouin already apologized before the motion was even moved. So there was no reason to move this motion.

We're here to deal with the issue under consideration. Mr. Drouin's comments, for which he has already apologized, were related to this committee study.

So I'm trying to clearly explain to the people who are with us and to those who are listening to us the importance of the study. If we are unable to draw conclusions from this study, we will have wasted a year.

I would remind you that the minister was with us today precisely to answer questions that were raised by witnesses—either by the witnesses who were here on Monday or other witnesses who have appeared over the past three or four months. These people made suggestions that I found extremely worthwhile. One of those recommendations was to create a structure that would enable experts to find mechanisms through which the federal government could grant funding directly to universities.

I used to be the executive director of a school board, so I know what it's like to work with Canadian Heritage and the government to receive funding for certain purposes. If we don't have the funds to fulfill our commitments, we can't enforce the rights granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the end of the day, the responsibility of a school board administrator is to provide quality education, but without the funding to do so, they cannot fulfill the mandate they were given.

So I repeat that this study is important. When will we be able to continue it? I'm not sure right now. I am concerned about this decision to waste an hour with the minister, who could have given us more food for thought. It's even worse when you consider that the department's team is here today and could give us more food for thought. These people played an extremely important role during the study of Bill C‑13. The beauty of modernizing the Official Languages Act is really that, now that we've established new rules of the game to better fulfill our responsibilities to the communities, topics will rise to the surface. One of those topics is the lack of funding for francophone universities in Canada. Once again, I want to congratulate Mr. Beaulieu for having the wisdom to bring this topic of discussion to the committee.

Why have these universities been relying on international students? It's to fill in the holes in their funding. We recognize that not all provinces are as open to the idea of supporting and providing education in French, but I can talk about Nova Scotia. Still, in Nova Scotia, we had good relations.

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

Mr. Samson, I know that I have been fairly permissive in terms of the content of the debate, but I would ask you to come back to the subject at hand. Earlier, you made a connection with the apology from the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, then you came back to Bill C‑13, and so on. I understand that. I know I'm permissive, and we've had this discussion at other times with other members, but my job right now is to make sure that the debate is relevant to the topic at hand.

I understand that, when you started talking, you made the connection with the apology that is being called for. I don't remember exactly what words you used, but you said that the member had already apologized four times. That said, the debate is currently on Mr. Généreux's amendment.

I would remind you of the content of this amendment. I invite you to refer to the documents, as it's easy to get lost in them. We are discussing points e), f), g) and h), which call for the member to be removed from this committee, his immediate resignation as chair of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie and his resignation as international chair of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, in addition to requesting that this incident be reported to the House of Commons.

I'm still listening to you, Mr. Samson, but your comments must be on that topic.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Okay, Mr. Chair.

I've been a member of Parliament for nine years. I was elected to represent my people. Like everyone around this table, I've sat on a number of committees, often two at a time. On these committees, my experiences have included, as my colleague just said, hearing emotional comments that sometimes fall short of expectations.

My parents always told me that, if I said the wrong thing, I should apologize. The first and most important step is to acknowledge that the choice of words may not have been correct or the most appropriate. These things happen, even to me. I'm sure that a number of people could say the same thing about me when I reflect on my conversations over the past nine years.

The example that comes to mind is a meeting where the committee heard from a Statistics Canada director. You were there, Mr. Chair, as were most of my colleagues. It was hot in the room. Even the journalists could certainly attest to that. I'm trying to remember what I said. At certain points during that meeting, I questioned the witness's honesty, analysis or interpretation. I remember it like it was yesterday. He said that a percentage obtained through a poll was more accurate than going door‑to‑door. We can certainly say that polls are significant. Nonetheless, whether you survey 100 people, 1,000 people, 10,000 people or 100,000 people, I think that a poll can never be more accurate or definitive than going door‑to‑door, individual by individual.

The person can say it. I'm right on the crux of the matter here. It's all about word choice. I remember it like it was yesterday. I challenged the witness, quite directly, as an Acadian can do. You know how it is, Mr. Chair. The Acadians came here to stay. As you well know, you have to stay up late and get up early…

Sorry, but that hurts me…

[The Chair, Liberal, René Arseneault]

I've been in a similar situation before, as chair. I think that my colleague, Mr. Beaulieu, will remember.

I'm quite permissive, and I prefer it that way, but—