House of Commons Hansard #367 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-21.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-83, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and another Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the notices of motion that were tabled for the report stage amendments. They are government amendments, since royal recommendations were made.
More specifically, I would like to draw your attention to Motion No. 17. I want to begin by saying that my intention here is not to point the finger at the Journals staff or the translators. We know that last night, at ten to midnight, they were very quietly given some government amendments to a bill that was criticized by all of the witnesses who appeared in committee.
With regard to Motion No. 17, we see that, contrary to usual practice, the French and English versions of the motion do not match up at all. That makes members' work more complicated, particularly the work of members who are bilingual like me, because we want to ensure that the French and English versions match and that everything is consistent. The fact that the two versions are not the same interferes with the work that needs to be done. Once again, I am saying this with the utmost respect for the translators. It is particularly shameful that the government did not submit these notices until last night at 10 p.m., knowing that the debate was taking place today.
I would therefore like to draw the Chair's attention to the government's amateurism since it prevents me, as a bilingual francophone MP, from properly examining the amendments tabled. I would like the Chair to consider this matter and issue a ruling to prevent this type of thing from happening again. I would also like the Chair to verify the admissibility of what is being presented today, of course.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I want to thank my colleague for raising the issue. The government is, in fact, aware of it and is working to make sure that we can resolve it in a satisfactory fashion. I just want to emphasize that.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Madam Speaker, I am not suggesting the government acted in bad faith, but we are debating these motions today, so when we are told not to worry and that the government is aware of the situation, that is hardly satisfactory. This is what we are debating today, so the whole situation is utterly deplorable.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Speaker, my colleague brings up an important point. When we get improper text and are expected to debate it within a couple of hours, it is probably not a point of order. It is almost a point of privilege.
Therefore, I want to share my concerns about the sloppiness of what the government has done, whether it was intentional or not, and the significant challenges it places on a member to ensure proper debate when there are only a couple of hours.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, just to further expand, there is nothing mischievous being planned. We have a subamendment to address the issue that has been raised. If we continue, we will see that the subamendment brought forward will address the concerns of the House.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I am very torn. I would say that normally, I would want to accept what the hon. parliamentary secretary said. I have an amendment at report stage. I am prepared to speak to it. However, I do not think the rules of this House would allow us to proceed with an imperfect amendment placed before us at report stage. I do not think we can say that we will proceed and hope it all turns out all right, as much as I would like to. I think it would violate our rules to proceed in such a fashion.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles would like to speak to the same point of order.
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Madam Speaker, Bill C-83 has been problematic from the start. Committee members even moved a motion to stop this bill. The witnesses were unanimous in their assessment that it does not work. We wanted the government to take the bill back and re-evaluate it, but the government refused.
This morning we were provided with a very sloppy French version that was all wrong, and this in the context of a conversation about how profoundly important official languages are in Canada. The government goes on and on about how it is fighting for this, and it keeps accusing the Conservatives of not being pro-French, but that is totally false.
I am the public safety critic. I am a francophone and a Quebecker. When the government hands us a document like this, as my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly said, we do not blame public servants. We blame the government for forcing everyone to do things too fast because it cannot get its own act together.
I do not think we should debate this today. It does not work.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Madam Speaker, we are at a crossroads right now with regard to making the situation better or worse, and by continuing, we will make it worse. I would like to point out that this was predictable in the sense that the government is making these amendments and changes at the last minute. This was entirely brought on by its own course of action. This was not the responsible action of the people behind the scenes that make this place work. This was brought about because the Liberals did so at such a late time that it caught up to them. At this point, are we going to make things worse or better? I would suggest that we make them better by deferring.
Luc Berthold Conservative Mégantic—L'Érable, QC
Madam Speaker, if I decide to read a bill or some amendments in French only, and my anglophone colleagues are not reading the same thing, that is completely unacceptable. It infringes upon my rights. It infringes upon my colleagues' rights.
What exactly will we be debating? For that reason, I think it is totally unacceptable that we continue debating these amendments, since we will be talking about two completely different things, depending on whether a member is anglophone or francophone. That is unacceptable in the House.
The government has a duty and a responsibility to protect our official language rights. In proceeding this way, the government essentially wants us to trample on the rights of Canada's two official language communities.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Madam Speaker, I would also like a review of the comments made by the parliamentary secretary who tried to reassure us by saying that a subamendment is coming and will likely be presented by my colleague in her speech on the amendments.
We have not seen those subamendments. That in itself is also problematic, since the government is announcing this to us without us having seen them, saying that this will fix an issue that has nothing to do with today's debate.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Madam Speaker, where is the fire? Under the Standing Orders, we are scheduled to sit until Friday of next week. Therefore we still have lots of time to organize our parliamentary business to ensure that the work is done properly.
Right now we are seized with amendments. When we look at amendments we get into the details. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”. If we want to do serious, thorough work, if we want to ensure that Canadians have confidence in our democracy, our parliamentary system and our work as elected members, then we have to do things properly.
Since we are nearing the final stage and getting to the end, we have to make sure that everything is done properly because once this bill is passed, once we move ahead with this, there is no turning back, or there will be delays.
The House is sitting until next Friday, so let's take the time to do things properly.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
After hearing all the points of order, I will take a few minutes to look at all this. I will come back quickly on these points of order.
I now have to move on to debate. I will come back with my ruling shortly.
There are 27 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-83. Motions Nos. 1 to 27 will be regrouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 27 to the House.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan is rising on a point of order.
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to your most recent ruling, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that since we are in orders of the day, the correct procedure would be to continue with the bill before the House rather than with a point of order. I would certainly take your guidance on this matter, but I would suggest that we consult with our clerks and procedural experts to ensure that we are going down the right path this morning.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Is the member for Haldimand—Norfolk rising on the same point of order?
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
Madam Speaker, I am. As I understand it, there is a protocol and procedure that would affect this. If the amendments are to be debated subject to a point of order, then the point of order needs to be discussed and decided upon before proceeding with the amendments. I am sure the experts at the table would be able to verify that for you.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I would like to point out that this matter has already been brought to the attention of the House. If hon. members could give me two or three minutes, I will come back and share my ruling on how we will proceed.
There are precedents that have been set on that.
The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly on a point of order.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Madam Speaker, I am seeking clarification about the precedents you just mentioned.
As I understand it, once you have finished reading the amendments at report stage, we will begin debating those amendments. I do not see how we can backtrack if the Chair deems that the points raised by members are valid.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
To answer the member, there are 27 amendments. We are able to start the debate and come back with the decision the Speaker will bring before the House.
The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton is rising on a point of order.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I suggest that we suspend until we can resolve this, or we can move the opposition motion, but the government motion should be dropped.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
The motion the member has just proposed is really challenging the Chair. I have made my decision, and we are going to proceed. I will be back shortly with the decision.
The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly on a point of order for the last time.
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like you to clarify the clarification.
The amendment in question is about 3,000 words long. If we move on to debate at report stage when the amendment is a problem, the government will not be able to move it again.
I would like clarification about the procedure.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
Is the hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola rising on the same point of order?
Dan Albas Conservative Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would point out that the government says that it is all about protecting the language rights of minorities. In putting forward duelling motions that say different things and expecting us to proceed with them in proper order, the government is kidding itself. I think you should immediately say that this is not in order and that we should not be discussing this until the government can figure out what it wants us to discuss.