Evidence of meeting #13 for Official Languages in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was it’s.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Louis Villeneuve Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you very much.
On December 2, we could finish the study on the quota of French‑language music. In the second part, we could discuss the report plan. That’s a suggestion.
I also want to revisit the study of the regulations. It is true that we had identified this as a priority. However, the regulations that have just been submitted are not very long. It won’t take us eight meetings to study them completely.
I don’t know what my colleagues think.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, what my colleague is suggesting for December 2 is reasonable. I think we need to finish the study on the quota.
Ms. Normand and the representative from Cogeco will appear during the first hour. That leaves one hour.
If we give our analyst the instructions to prepare the report on the education continuum, she will have her hands full. I also want to note that she will have a report to prepare on the quota and another on the use of French. We will therefore hear about Ms. Lecomte in the coming months.
I also want to go back to the fact that this is not what we had agreed upon for December 4. We need to understand that we’ve muddied the waters. We plan to receive two ministers, each for an hour, to discuss two different topics. This is not what we agreed upon. The motion from October 23 did indeed state that the ministers would discuss the use of French. The other motion stated that the ministers would discuss their mandate letter. These are two completely different topics. I would, therefore, separate them.
I suggest that on December 4, we complete the study on the use of French so we can finish the report and draft it. The ministers should be reinvited next February to discuss their mandate letters. I know it’s late, but I would still like to hear them discuss their mandate letters. Personally, I wouldn’t merge the two topics. That was not the intent of our motion, and I believe that’s not what was decided around the table. As for December 9, we have time. We can therefore begin the study of the regulations.
As my colleague mentioned earlier regarding the regulations, I do not want to take a position today because the regulations were submitted yesterday at 4:00 PM. We can come back to this, but I think we could start the study of the regulations on December 9. I don’t know if we need one meeting or more. It would be irresponsible of me to respond to you today, but we could schedule this study for that time.
On December 17, the Commissioner will likely be at the end of his term, and the holiday break will have begun. We will therefore revisit the reports from our analyst and, if necessary, the study on the regulations in February. We’re talking about the month of January, but it will more likely be February.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
Thank you, Mr. Godin.
I would like to revisit a few points.
I understand your comments about merging the topics in meeting 15. I wanted to bring this up with you, but I didn’t get the chance to do so. The clerk is constantly in contact with the ministers’ offices.
That said, you’re right. I agree that they were separate studies. The reason they were brought together is that there were discussions with the ministers’ offices and both ministers offered to testify on both topics at the same time so we could ask them questions on both topics at the same time. However, that is up to the committee.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, it must be understood that the motion referred to two hours for each minister. I understand that the ministers can speak for an hour each, but on one topic, not two.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
You need to understand that it was the clerk who put that in the calendar. This is not a decision I made myself.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
The clerk can therefore write to the ministers again, if that is the committee’s wish.
As for the second point, namely meeting 17, during which we will receive the Commissioner of Official Languages to discuss the use of French in federal communications, the clerk was in contact with the Commissioner. If that is the committee’s wish, he would be ready to testify on the regulations during meeting 17. At the moment, he is therefore amenable to discussing the study scheduled in the calendar. That’s an option.
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault, you have the floor.
Liberal
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Are we all in agreement that the first hour of meeting 14 will focus on the study of the quota of French‑language music, and the second hour will be dedicated to preparing the report plan? Do we have everyone’s consent? I think it’s decided.
I will come back to the 15th meeting later. First, I want to talk about the meetings we have agreement on to speed things up, Mr. Godin.
Are we all in agreement that meeting number 16 will focus on the regulations?
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I have reservations. As I told you, we received the information at 4:00 p.m. yesterday evening. I want to confirm it, but we need to consult our colleagues. I’m the spokesperson, but I am not free to do what I want.
Liberal
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
We agree on the principle. We could therefore schedule the study on the regulations in the calendar.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
We agree in principle, but I reserve the right to revisit it.
Liberal
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
I would like to hear my colleagues’ comments about meeting 17.
I suggest obtaining the comments from the Commissioner, who is finishing his term, on the regulations concerning the administrative monetary penalties that the Commissioner can impose. It had been mentioned in the file. I think it would be interesting.
The topic of the second hour of meeting 17 was to be determined.
Liberal
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Yes, the Commissioner is coming. We will be able to ask him questions.
Liberal
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
We could therefore dedicate meeting number 17 to discussing the regulations, if we want to have someone else during the second hour.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
What my colleague just suggested is that we spend two hours with the Commissioner during meeting 17.
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
We would first discuss the use of French and then the regulations.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
That’s it. The first hour would focus on the use of French, and the second hour would focus on the regulations.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
I would ask that only one person speak at a time. It would help the interpreters.
Mr. Deschênes-Thériault, you have the floor.
Liberal
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
For meeting 14, meeting 16 and meeting 17, we will receive the Commissioner. I think the question is pretty much settled.
With respect to meeting 15, I understood that the invitation the ministers accepted was related to their mandate letters. At the start of the session, in September, we had sent them an invitation related to their mandate. I understood that this is what they were coming to talk about.
However, for the agenda, do we agree to keep the ministers in meeting 15?
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yvan Baker
It’s Ms. Chenette’s turn. Next, it will be your turn, Mr. Godin.
Ms. Chenette, you have the floor.
Liberal
Madeleine Chenette Liberal Thérèse-De Blainville, QC
Basically, we agree on the content of meeting 14 and meeting 16.
I do understand the difference between the study of the use of French and the mandate letters. It is important to understand the mandates of the ministers before discussing the use of French. I understood that’s why they suggested doing both at the same time. We could perhaps ask them for more time, because we talked about the time needed to get to the bottom of the matters.
I would like to have my colleagues’ comments on that.
Don’t you see the importance of properly understanding their mandates before questioning them about the use of French?
Could we merge the two topics, as was proposed, and perhaps ask them for more time?