Debates of March 20th, 2024

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion lost.

The House resumed from February 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-365, An Act respecting the implementation of a consumer-led banking system for Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #671

Consumer-led Banking Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried.

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I had difficulties with the app. I am hoping there will be unanimous consent to have my vote counted in favour.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, Government Orders will be extended by 36 minutes.

Bilingual Documents in the House of Commons

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege.

On this International Day of La Francophonie, the fact that our institution behaved this way is a bit of an embarrassment.

I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the Liberal government's chaotic attempt to amend the New Democratic Party's opposition motion, moved on Monday. On Monday evening, with one minute left to debate the NDP opposition motion, the Liberal government House leader proposed a long, complex and unilingual amendment. As we know, extensive procedural arguments followed. However, given that the amendment was available in English only, francophone members could not fully participate in the debate.

Furthermore, translation delays prevented members from considering the amendment in French until immediately before the vote. In my opinion, the government's conduct obstructed the ability of francophone members to take part in House business. I consider this obstruction serious enough to constitute a breach of privilege.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states the following at page 111:

A Member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means. In ruling on such matters, the Speaker examines the effect the incident or event had on the Member's ability to fulfill his or her parliamentary responsibilities. If, in the Speaker's view, the Member was not obstructed in the performance of his or her parliamentary duties and functions, then a prima facie breach of privilege cannot be found.

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege.

We have an absolute constitutional right to use either official language in parliamentary proceedings. However, the actions of the Liberal House leader—a member from Quebec no less—on Monday night diminished the ability of francophone members to participate in very important procedural deliberations in the House. The hon. member for Gatineau treated francophone members of this place like second-class members.

I would also refer the Speaker to Standing Order 65, which reads as follows:

All motions shall be in writing, and seconded, before being debated or put from the chair. When a motion is seconded, it shall be read in English and in French by the Speaker, if he or she be familiar with both languages; if not, the Speaker shall read the motion in one language and direct the clerk of the table to read it in the other, before debate.

Unfortunately, neither the Speaker nor the clerk was able to read the amendment in French because it did not exist in French. It is shameful, it is shocking, and frankly, for an officially bilingual country, it is embarrassing. For those who do not know, the use of both official languages, French and English, in Canada and more specifically here in the House of Commons, has been required under the Constitution since Confederation.

If the Chair agrees that there is a prima facie question of privilege, I am ready to move the appropriate motion. I thank the Chair for his attention.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The parliamentary secretary on the same question of privilege.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, given the nature of the privilege the member has raised, we will take it as notice and will provide comment in a relatively quick time span for you to make a decision.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I recognize the hon. member for La Prairie, who wishes to speak on the same question of privilege.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that the Bloc Québécois reserves the right to make comments later, when it has properly analyzed the situation raised by my colleague from the Conservative Party.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable on the same question of privilege.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few points to the question of privilege raised by my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier.

As you reflect on the ruling you should give on this question of privilege, I would like to remind you that, with the passage of the British North America Act, the greatest legacy of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George-Étienne Cartier, members have been free to express themselves in the official language of their choice since the first sitting of the Parliament of Canada.

At the beginning of the 20th century, R.B. Bennett's Conservative government created the federal Translation Bureau. Under a law passed in 1934 following an admittedly heated debate, the Translation Bureau was given the responsibility of working with both chambers of Parliament and of acting on their behalf in terms of translations.

Later, John George Diefenbaker's government introduced simultaneous interpretation in the chambers of Parliament to keep a promise made by the Progressive Conservative Party in its 1958 electoral platform. Ironically, at the time, some Liberals were opposed to that change.

In an article commemorating a half century of interpretation in the House, Professor Jean Delisle pointed out that even Lester B. Pearson opposed simultaneous interpretation in Parliament. However, that Liberal opposition evaporated when Mr. Diefenbaker's government asked the House to approve the necessary provisions.

More recently, it was the government of Brian Mulroney, a great statesman whose legacy we examined following his recent sad demise, that passed a new official languages act, the one currently in force. That act, which has quasi-constitutional status thanks to Mr. Mulroney's government, made simultaneous interpretation in the House a right.

It goes without saying that bilingualism and parliamentary bilingualism are a proud legacy of the Conservatives. This NDP-Liberal coalition government, however, scoffs at bilingualism. We absolutely must take a firm and clear stand against any further diminishment of respect for the French language in the House of Commons.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my comments and agree with the question of privilege that was raised.

In general, what happened on Monday night was a gross and disgusting violation of the principle of the House being a deliberative assembly of members. The fact that the government put forward a last-minute, very substantive amendment, which was not at all debated in the House, is disgusting, and it would not be acceptable in any legislature around the world. It was particularly unfair, for the reasons my colleague explained, to our francophone colleagues because of the lack of translation available.

In general, the timeline and the process presented by the government seemed to try to reduce Parliament to pageantry and theatre, rather than recognize our substantive role as the deliberative assembly of one nation in both official languages. This was wrong and unfair in general, but it was particularly unfair to our francophone colleagues. I hope you will find in favour of this question of privilege.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I very much appreciate the points that all members have raised on this question of privilege. Given the broad interest in this matter and the desire for the Chair to render a ruling that reflects the concerns that have been raised, particularly by the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier and by a number of colleagues in the House, I would like to inform hon. members that the Chair has heard the essence of everything that has been expressed.

I will come back to the House with a decision very soon.

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. I invite him to speak very quickly because, as I just said, the Chair has heard a great deal on this. I will incorporate his comments from the same perspective.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a francophone and proud representative of Louis‑Saint‑Laurent, a francophone riding in Confederation, I was very insulted to have to vote on a motion that was available in English only.

The House leader of the official opposition had offered a solution that very evening, suggesting that the vote be postponed until the text could be properly translated. Unfortunately, that recommendation was not followed on Monday and that is a shame.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I see the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston rising on the same question. I will let the member know that I have heard a number of points on this issue. The Chair is satisfied that he has heard the full range necessary to make an important decision on this issue. I will ask the member to be very brief. This will be the last point on this question of privilege to be heard by the Chair.

The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out something that I think is highly relevant but has not been mentioned in the previous submissions. I think it will be of use to you in coming to a decision.

We know that it was one minute, more or less, before the end of the debate that this was raised—

[An hon. member]

It was five.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am told it was five minutes, but the point is this. In the normal course of business, we present a motion in one language only. We do not stop the proceedings for an hour, as has actually happened, to give the opportunity for the second language to be produced. We would return to the debate and, if members could get the matter to you, Mr. Speaker, in both languages prior to the expiration of the debate, then you would end things. You do not halt things and allow members to get around to producing things at their convenience.

I think that rule would indicate that the wrong approach was taken here, and your guidance in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, for future situations of the same sort would be most helpful.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston for raising that point. The Chair will come back to the House.

Chief Electoral Officer of Canada

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Pursuant to section 536 of the Canada Elections Act, it is my duty to lay upon the table the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 2023 by-elections.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 18 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Canada Elections Act

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑65, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)