(Ottawa) The Liberals were attacked from all sides Thursday by the opposition during the testimony of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Pablo Rodriguez, and then the Minister of Official Languages, Ginette Petitpas Taylor.
The tone was set from the first discussions in the committee responsible for studying Bill C-13 aimed at modernizing the Official Languages Actwhile Minister Rodriguez systematically referred the questions put to him to his colleague.
“The ‘Ministry of Official Languages’ doesn’t exist. Heritage is responsible,” said Joël Godin, the Conservative spokesperson for official languages, who raised his voice at times and added “perhaps you don’t know”.
Official languages responsibilities were transferred to Mr.me Petitpas Taylor, replied the equally hot minister. Mr. Godin really set things on fire by calling the minister “your representative”.
“She is not a representative: she is the minister in title”, was angry Mr. Rodriguez who also added to it by qualifying a question of “not so relevant”. Liberals later called the chosen word “very disrespectful.” The minister herself said she was “a little insulted”.
While it was screaming downright in the room, members asked their colleagues to lower their voices, the chairman of the committee, René Arseneault, even worrying about the hearing of the interpreters, who could be seen smiling heartily in their cabins.
This is the first time in seven years that I’ve sat here and seen things unfold like this around the table.
Rene Arseneault
The other opposition parties also attacked Minister Rodriguez. New Democratic Party (NDP) MP Niki Ashton almost called her ministry incompetent. “If you have never been able to fulfill the mission you were given until now, why would you be able in the future? she asked.
In a scrum, Minister Rodriguez, who seemed in a hurry to leave, admitted, almost one foot on the escalators, that the bill should probably mention the Minister of Official Languages.
Mr. Godin for his part explained that he and Mr. Rodriguez are “two bloodthirsty people” who have Latin roots. “Sometimes the emotion takes the disappointed,” he added.
Second round
An hour almost completely wasted later, Minister Petitpas Taylor was in turn cooked by the opposition.
“You come back again with generalities,” the Bloc Québécois spokesperson for official languages, Mario Beaulieu, told him, cutting him off after she avoided telling him what Quebec is asking the Trudeau government to do. he responds with this bill.
The minister then tried, with difficulty and difficulty, to point out that her bill will grant the right to work and to be served in French in businesses under federal jurisdiction. But, again, she could only say a few words before Mr. Beaulieu pointed out to her that Quebec wants Bill 101 to apply to these companies instead.
Mme Petitpas Taylor went out of her way not to say whether she agrees with even one amendment proposed by the Government of Quebec. Even with the journalists who pressed her to know if she was open to the amendments from Quebec, she said, with difficulty and misery, to be open to “all” the amendments.
She also had all the difficulty in the world to say whether she believes that English is threatened in Quebec, as the Bloc asked her earlier. “English is not under threat in Canada,” she repeatedly replied to reporters, but by dint of insistence she agreed with the assertion that “English is not not threatened in Quebec”.
It is clear, in the opinion of the Bloc, that the bill contains “nothing for Quebec”, repeated Mr. Beaulieu. But he said other opposition parties will be receptive to amendments, including making private businesses under federal jurisdiction subject to Bill 101.
“There is a good chance,” he assured as he left the room, insisting that the government is in the minority.
Mr. Beaulieu, however, refused to say whether his party would support the bill if it obtains this request.
The committee will begin clause-by-clause study of the bill on Tuesday. According to an agreement between the parties, the work would be spread over a maximum of eight meetings unless there is unanimous consent for it to be longer. If all the meetings are used up and no more are added, the bill could be sent to the House of Commons in mid-February or early March.