LANG Committee Meeting

    We are starting the public portion of the meeting.

    We will begin with a discussion on Mr. Beaulieu's motion.

    Mr. Beaulieu, the floor is yours.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The motion is as follows:

    As we know, Radio-Canada revealed that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was hiring unilingual anglophones for bilingual positions. These employees do not speak a word of French and are not taking French courses, either. This is a flagrant violation of the Official Languages Act by the federal police. It is also far from the first time this has happened.

    In 2016, the Commissioner of Official Languages announced that 16,000 positions required English compared to only 19 positions that required French. A little later, in 2019, the Commissioner of Official Languages announced that all of the 21,134 regular member positions of the RCMP were designated as “French non-essential”. In fact, some of those positions are bilingual, but no positions are designated as “French essential” anymore. The situation is really deteriorating.

    Police training could previously be completed in either official language. Since 2019, it has been offered only in English or in bilingual format. As Stéphanie Chouinard said, any bilingual training puts francophones at a disadvantage.

    The list of examples is long. For instance, access to information requests in French are processed less quickly than others. What's more, the Commissioner of Official Languages recently criticized the RCMP in Prince Edward Island because its warnings about dangerous weather were not translated into French until four hours later, jeopardizing people's safety.

    I think it's very important that the committee hear from the RCMP commissioner.

    Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

    Mr. Godin now has the floor. He will be followed by Mr. Serré.

    Mr. Godin, go ahead.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague about the motion that has been moved. However, I'd like to make a few changes.

    First, of course, “October 18” should be replaced with “November 8”. That's the date I propose. Second, I propose adding “, and invite the Minister of Public Safety”. Indeed—

    You mean to say, “no later than November 8”, right?

    Yes, that's right. Is it realistic? Yes? Okay.

    I think it's important to hear from the person who is on the ground and the government representative who has the power to provide direction.

    As I often say, we would have liked the Treasury Board to be the central agency, but that unfortunately wasn't part of Bill C‑13.

    Therefore, I move that we adopt an amendment to replace “October 18” with “November 8” and add “, and invite the Minister of Public Safety” after “Mike Duheme”.

    This is my proposed amendment, Mr. Chair.

    Does anyone have anything to say about Mr. Godin's amendment?

    Mr. Serré, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I agree with Mr. Beaulieu's motion, and I think we all agree that the motion is essential.

    Mr. Serré, we're talking about Mr. Godin's amendment.

    As for the date, the clerk would have to check whether November 8 would not be too soon. Obviously, it probably won't be possible before October 18.

    That said, Mr. Godin's proposal shows a pattern. A minister is invited in every motion presented. It may be the will of the committee to invite ministers to each of its meetings—that is requested in each motion—but I don't think it's realistic. The motion is clear and seeks to invite Mike Duheme, from the RCMP, to testify before the committee. That's important, and I think the committee needs to do it.

    I agree with changing the date to November 8. On the other hand, I don't think we always have to invite ministers to testify before the committee.

    We could meet with Mr. Duheme and then see if—

    I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

    Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

    My colleague is talking about the committee's supposed habits, but I'd like us to continue discussing the amendment.

    I proposed an amendment to change the date and invite the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs.

    Mr. Godin, I think we can continue listening to Mr. Serré. You made a comment about the Treasury Board in the context of your amendment. I think we can balance things out and, in some cases, add a little cream. On the other hand, if we want the cream to contain absolutely no fat, that has to apply to everyone.

    Mr. Serré, you may continue.

    I don't know about the fat issue, but I think there's enough fat around.

    If I understand correctly, Mr. Godin is proposing two amendments. He wants the date changed and he wants the minister to be invited. I'm trying to determine whether it's necessary to do that before we hear from the RCMP.

    I agree that the motion should be amended. I'm just wondering whether it's necessary to add the invitation for the minister to the motion. This could happen with every motion. But we really want to hear what the RCMP commissioner has to say here. Then we could see what we want to do.

    With the plan we've already approved, we have a date, which is November 8. I just want to make sure that's not a problem. Adding a minister every time takes a little more time. We really want to get to the heart of the matter. This is very important. We want to hear from the commissioner. What's going on is not acceptable, and we want to hear from him as soon as possible.

    Thank you, Mr. Serré.

    In anticipation of future comments, I'd like to clarify that Mr. Godin's amendment to Mr. Beaulieu's motion is in two parts, but is really one amendment. We would change the date of the RCMP commissioner's appearance, which would take place by November 8, and we would add an invitation for the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs. That's it, I think.

    Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

    The amendment is certainly necessary, given that we have greatly delayed the adoption of the motion. The October 18 date has lapsed. I find the idea of hearing from the Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions and Intergovernmental Affairs relevant, given what links the RCMP to that department.

    Moreover, we're talking here about a long-standing situation. I don't know for how many years the Commissioner of Official Languages has been making one report after another. If the minister is going to be held accountable on this, maybe he'll lobby for changes.

    Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu.

    Ms. Ashton—

    I'd like to add very quickly that, if some people absolutely disagree with inviting the minister, they'll have to split the amendment in two.

    I want to hear everyone's comments on the amendment. I'm being told we can split it if we want. But I want to hear from the committee members first. Perhaps there will be a consensus.

    Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

    I want to say, first, that I support the amendment. I think it makes sense.

    Second, as we know, the minister responsible for public safety, who runs the RCMP in one way or another, is francophone and from the Atlantic region. Yet the commissioner's report speaks very disturbingly of the weather warnings that were issued during the recent storms. I imagine this would be an issue for the minister. We'd like to hear what this new minister has to say and see how progress can be made on this very important and troubling issue.

    Thank you, Ms. Ashton.

    Mr. Iacono, go ahead.

    Mr. Chair, I'm a little confused. We're trying to move so quickly that we don't understand the purpose of the motion.

    I think it is more important to invite the RCMP commissioner and public officials to shed light on the situation and explain things to us in detail than to invite the Minister of Public Safety and bombard him with questions.

    It's not the minister who's going to have all the answers, but rather the department's representatives. Once we've heard their opinion and that of the commissioner, we'll be in a better position to ask the minister questions. At the moment, inviting the minister would be a little premature. We have neither enough details nor enough information about why things went wrong.

     I would rather hear from public officials, people who will be able to answer our questions, rather than simply invite the minister to ask him questions, when he won't know all the details. I'm not saying he's not aware of the situation, but public officials will be better equipped to point us in the right direction. Their information and answers will enable us to meet with the minister later.

    Thank you, Mr. Iacono.

    Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

    Thank you very much.

    Normally, we have discussions in the hallways. I don't want to repeat them here, but we don't even know if the minister will be available in two weeks. I am very familiar with the opposition's tricks: If he is not available, they will say that the minister did not comply with the motion. The motion proposes a date, but I have no idea of the minister's availability. I don't have his schedule in front of me.

    Does the committee want to undertake a study on the RCMP? If so, it could invite Vic Toews and Steven Blaney. Indeed, the problem of bilingualism in the RCMP is not new, as Mr. Beaulieu rightly said. It didn't start 24 hours ago, or 48 hours ago, or with the story we just read in the paper recently. It goes back a number of years. If the committee wants to undertake a more in-depth study on the topic, it can invite everyone.

    Depending on the committee's flexibility, I suggest giving the RCMP commissioner a deadline, which everyone agreed on, and giving the Minister of Public Safety a little more flexibility. No one has talked to us about this before. Normally, there are discussions beforehand behind the scenes. If that had been the case, we would have known that the committee wanted to invite the minister and we would have negotiated a date; maybe not November 8, but maybe the week after or before December 1, for example. At the moment, the date in question is two weeks away. I'm not a minister, but my schedule for the next three weeks is already full.

    There is no set date for the minister.

    The amendment mentions November 8.

    Mr. Drouin, you are proposing a subamendment to an amendment.

    I am extending my hand.

    Okay.

    The member should propose a subamendment.

    I would still like to hear what the other committee members have to say about this.

    Mr. Chair, do you want me to answer my colleague?

    Let's hear from the other committee members on this matter; then we'll see.

    Mr. Chair, in my proposed amendment, November 8 applies to Mike Duheme's appearance. I also ask that “, and invite the Minister of Public Safety” be added. No date is specified in the case of the Minister of Public Safety.

    I understand the difficulty of a minister's schedule. If my colleague wants to invite every public safety minister in Canadian history, he can.

    The syntax of the sentence might suggest that it's November 8. This is not clear.

    That wasn't the meaning of the sentence.

    I will give the floor to those who raised their hand.

    Mr. Samson, go ahead.

    I don't think we will be able to vote on the amendment and the motion before the end of the meeting. Perhaps the amendment should be amended to make it clearer. It is not clear that the Minister of Public Safety must or must not appear before November 8.

    The date should be indicated, if it can be done, but I don't think we can expect the minister to be here on November 8, if that's what the committee wants.

    I think we need to reword the amendment if the committee really wants to hear from the minister.

    I want to make it clear that, even if Mr. Godin wished, he could not amend his own amendment to Mr. Beaulieu's motion.

    Mrs. Goodridge, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    We'll continue to debate this issue, but I think it's time to vote on this amendment. I think it's really important to discuss this motion, and I think Canadians want us to vote on it.

    Before we vote, one last attempt to settle something informally: can we agree to meet with the RCMP commissioner no later than November 8? Then we could find a potential date to invite the minister.

    Would everyone around the table agree if we can word the motion that way?

    Go ahead, Mr. Samson.

    I would like to propose that the Minister of Public Safety appear at a time when his schedule permits.

    Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

    Two points, Mr. Chair.

    First, what you just said is entirely in line with my amendment.

    Second, Ms. Goodridge asked for a vote, so I would like us to vote.

    All members would have to understand the intent—

    As chair, I took the liberty of asking for unanimous consent; I thought I could do so and that it would be faster. That was my intent.

    Mr. Serré, I would like to hear your thoughts on what I just said.

    I would simply like to have that in writing. I want to be sure the intent is clear.

    It is quite simple: as long as there is no specific date to meet with the minister, everyone is in agreement.

    I think everyone is saying the same thing.

    The problem is that we are talking about this at the last minute.

    Let me suggest to the committee, as Mr. Godin's amendment states, that we invite the commissioner to appear no later than November 8. The clerk is indicating that the commissioner would be available on that date. I also suggest we look at a later date for the minister to appear, depending on his availability.

    Are all members in agreement?

    You are giving us an option. That's fine.

    I think it would have to be no later than December.

    Do you think that would be too soon?

    Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

    My amendment was along those lines, but it still has to be scheduled. It has to be. It could be on January 15 if you wish, but it would have to be before the next elections.

    If this is not settled soon, we will vote on it.

    Mr. Drouin, you have the floor.

    In procedural terms, we are in talks.

    It is still not clear since Mr. Beaulieu just asked for clarification as to whether it would be before December. That is why we would like to get it in writing. It is not clear to committee members.

    Mr. Godin said he was not suggesting a date for the minister to appear, but now he is asking for one. I do not have any date to suggest. In principle, the amendment does not specify a date, but I am not sure of that because, from the way it is worded, it could be November 8, but perhaps not.

    I suggest we delete part of Mr. Godin's amendment and vote to invite the commissioner to appear on November 8. If Mr. Godin feels strongly about the minister appearing, he could move another motion.

    I would like to point out that, when the RCMP commissioner appears, Mr. Godin can present another motion related to this amendment. He would not have to give notice of a motion, since it pertains to the same subject. He may do so publicly when everyone at home is watching us on television, and we will be more popular than the program Tout le monde en parle. Right now, however, it is not clear to anyone.

    So it really comes down to the amendment.

    I will read out Mr. Godin's amendment as submitted. I will then give the floor to Ms. Ashton.

    Mr. Godin, please listen and tell me if this is what you are thinking.

     Mr. Beaulieu's amended motion would read as follows:

    That is exactly what Mr. Godin proposed.

    I have given everyone the floor, but I want to hear from Ms. Ashton. If we are not in agreement then, we will vote, as Ms. Goodridge requested.

    Ms. Ashton, I'm not sure if you have figured all this out, but please go ahead.

    Can we vote on the subamendment?

    There is just an amendment, Mr. Godin's.

    Okay.

    I would also like to add a cut-off date so it is no later than December. I do not want it to be delayed until next year.

    I am willing to propose that subamendment, but I would rather vote on the amendment to move things along.

    All right, but Ms. Goodridge requested a vote.

    Since there is no agreement, we will vote, unless you tell me you are in agreement.

    (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

    In the end, we have all agreed. That is what I was suggesting.

    So now we will return to Mr. Beaulieu's motion as amended.

    Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

    I am requesting a vote, Mr. Chair.

    I was about to ask first whether there is unanimous consent on Mr. Beaulieu's motion.

    Is anyone opposed?

    No, so we have unanimous consent.

    (Motion as amended agreed to)

    Mr. Chair, I would like to request unanimous consent to spend another 10 to 15 minutes on Mr. Généreux's motion.

    We will consider it now.

    Will there be a vote?

    I have to leave now as well.

    In any case, if they are both leaving, it is not necessary.

    Everyone agrees, in any case. It is a formality.

    Can we give Mr. Généreux two minutes to table his motion to see if we get unanimous consent?

    Go ahead, Mr. Généreux.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to give notice of a motion, in English and French, regarding the CBC Podcasts saga:

    Excuse me, Mr. Généreux, as a formality, you have to say that you are moving your motion.

    Okay. I move the following:

    Mr. Chair, I will be very brief. This situation is completely unacceptable. Canada has two official languages and we do not have to justify the place in the world of the Quebec accent, of Canadian French or of the francophonie in Canada. If we cannot be proud of our language in Canada, we have a serious problem.

    This is obviously a very serious insult to Quebec, Canadian, francophone and francophile society. I could go on, but I will stop now since we do not have a lot of time.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Généreux.

    Mr. Beaulieu, you have the floor.

    I support the motion. In view of the time, among other things, I would like to request a vote.

    Do we have the right to request a vote?

    A voice: No.

    Mr. Serré, you have the floor, followed by Ms. Ashton.

    I want to thank Mr. Généreux for his motion. We agree entirely and we can adopt the motion quickly. I am not sure however that you read the last line. The only issue I have is at the end of the last sentence, which suggests that the Minister of Official Languages be invited as well. He will be appearing next week, as it happens. We will also welcome the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the President of the Treasury Board and will have the opportunity to ask them questions at that time.

    Otherwise, we agree with the motion. We will invite CBC/Radio‑Canada officials to explain their decision. Once again, it is not necessary to invite the ministers in every motion, especially since they are already scheduled to appear before the committee. If Mr. Généreux would accordingly delete “as well as the Minister of Official Languages” from the motion, we will approve it right away.

    Are you proposing an amendment?

    Yes, I request that “as well as the Minister of Official Languages” be deleted from the motion.

    You want to delete that part because he will already be appearing, as you said?

    Yes, because he will already be appearing.

    An amendment has been put forward.

    Some members have to leave, and Ms. Ashton, Mr. Godin, Mr. Drouin and Mr. Samson wish to speak.

    We are agreeable to deleting “as well as the Minister of Official Languages”. We would approve that amendment.

    It's fine if the minister's name is not included in the motion since he will be here next week. We could however vote on a supplementary resolution to invite the minister for two hours to discuss this matter, after the witnesses have been heard.

    Okay.

    I will now go through the list of speakers, but please speak only about Mr. Serré's amendment.

    Ms. Ashton, you have the floor.

    I support the motion as worded. Coming from a region where Franco-Manitobans have their own accent, I am stunned by what the CBC/Radio‑Canada did. I have to wonder how this happened. I think we need to hear from the Minister of Official Languages on this matter. He will indeed be appearing, but on another matter. I support the original motion.

    I would like you to speak to the amendment.

    I want to hear from the members to see if we have a consensus.

    Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Chair, we are being criticized for wanting to invite ministers in every motion. But it is our job to ask questions. Ministers represent the government. Unfortunately, our parliamentary system is designed that way. At the same time, I do not see why they do not want the Minister of Official Languages to appear before the committee.

     I think it is important for us to ask the minister about this, since he is the official who has to uphold the act, whether or not that is through the responsible minister, the Minister of Canadian Heritage; that is his decision.

    If the government wishes to alter the schedule to increase the likelihood of the minister appearing, I would say that has already been planned, but not on that matter.

    I do not want us, as parliamentarians, to be deprived of our time to ask questions. If the minister appears for an hour, you know, Mr. Chair, the opposition will have 12 minutes and the second and third parties in opposition will have six or seven minutes. I think that is irresponsible in general. We would not be able to do our work rigorously and responsibly.

    All right.

    We will continue discussing Mr. Serré's amendment with Mr. Drouin, and then with Mr. Samson.

    Go ahead, Mr. Drouin.

    The minister will be here next week, so I do not see why opposition members would not ask their questions then.

    I would also remind them that there is a daily question period. They could talk to their leaders and remind them that it is important to speak to the minister. They could rise in the House of Commons every day to ask the minister—

    A point of order, Mr. Chair. We are talking—

    I also want to point out that the Minister of Official Languages—

    One moment, Mr. Drouin. Mr. Godin is speaking.

    What is your point of order?

    My colleague is talking about a procedure that does not apply to us. I think we need to stick to the procedure at committees.

    Just a minute, Mr. Godin.

    Mr. Drouin might have cast a wide net, but he clearly referred to the amendment first, and we heard him clearly. His point was that we should take the opportunity while the minister is here.

    He should not talk about the procedure in the House.

    I cannot tell you in advance what Mr. Drouin will say, but he was speaking about the amendment.

    Mr. Drouin, please continue.

    Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

    Certainly. You have the floor, Mr. Iacono.

    I just want to point out that it is 6:42. Some people have to leave the meeting. I have another committee meeting starting in half an hour. I think we have dwelled on this long enough.

    I would like to request that we adjourn. We agreed to stay two or three minutes longer, but it has now been more than 10 minutes longer.

    Mr. Samson, it is in fact your turn to speak.

    I would like the committee to adjourn.

    I'm sorry, Mr. Drouin was not finished.

    I was not finished.

    If the Minister of Official Languages were to make decisions about the CBC's regular business, I think that would be problematic. I know that is not the case, and I am not saying this for partisan reasons. That was not the case under the Conservatives. It would not be the case under the Bloc if it were in power. It would not be normal for a minister to be involved in making day-to-day decisions at the CBC.

     By the way, the Minister of Official Languages is not responsible for the CBC/Radio‑Canada, as you know. You all know that. We approve the budgets for the CBC/Radio‑Canada; they make decisions on regular business. That is normal. It is apolitical. Politicians do not decide who controls what. As frustrating as it may be, it is not for politicians to decide whether Radio‑Canada has made a poor decision. We can attack them, but it is the CBC/Radio‑Canada who should appear before the committee.

    Then, if we want to hear from other ministers on this issue, or look into the matter in greater depth, let me reiterate that we can invite the Minister of Canadian Heritage, and not the Minister of Official Languages. Ask him about it. Take 10 seconds to ask him how much time he devotes to the CBC/Radio‑Canada. I can guarantee you that he will say he does not devote any time to it whatsoever since it is not his responsibility.

    Thank you, Mr. Drouin.

    Mr. Samson, you have the floor.

    Once again, I would like the committee to adjourn. We agreed to continue for two or three minutes to make a decision. We are already 15 minutes past the scheduled time.

    I would therefore like the committee to adjourn.

    Thank you, Mr. Samson.

    You certainly have the right to request that when you have the floor.

    There does not appear to be unanimous consent to adjourn. We will have to vote.

    Does the committee wish to adjourn?

    (Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

    I simply want to point out that I cannot stop people who have to leave. I was among them, but the meeting can continue as long as there is quorum.

    We were discussing Mr. Serré's amendment.

    Ms. Goodridge, you have the floor.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Ministerial responsibility is a very important part of our political system. Ministers must justify their decisions to the elected members. I think we should vote against this amendment and vote in favour of the original motion by my colleague, Mr. Généreux. I do not think we need to discuss this any longer. The two positions are clear. I suggest that we vote on the amendment and the motion so we can adjourn.

    Mr. Dalton, you have the floor.

    We know that the minister will be here next week. We are willing to add time since this is an important matter.

    The minister might defend himself by saying it is not his responsibility. We can also share our concerns with him and ask him questions.

    We understand what the Liberals said, but it is important to us to ask questions.

    Anyone else?

    Let us now vote on Mr. Serré's amendment.

    Can you remind me what exactly the amendment is?

    Mr. Serré's amendment was to delete—

    I am asking for the benefit of everyone here.

    The clerk will read it out.

    Please go ahead, Madam Clerk.

    Mr. Serré's amendment would amend Mr. Généreux's motion by deleting “as well as the Minister of Official Languages”.

    There you have it.

    (Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

    Let us return to Mr. Généreux's original motion.

    Does anyone wish to discuss the motion without amendments?

    Let us vote then.

    (Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

    So it is agreed to, unanimously.

    Thank you all for your patience.

    See you next Monday.

    The meeting is adjourned.