Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Obviously this is a very serious matter. I think you've hit the nail on the head on that point. Having said that, just before I left for holidays, I hoped that perhaps the members opposite would have their consciences pricked by what they were about to do. I see that this has been somewhat the case with respect to Mr. Savage, but Mr. Lessard has taken a rather hard approach, and I would ask him to still reconsider.
I know he said that Mr. Martin's support of the motion I made was somewhat of an unintended accident, if you want to call it that, but that's just not the case. Let us look at the motion. Let me read the motion. It says:
That the HUMA Committee request a written copy of all the transcripts of all the Standing Committees which have conducted a study on the Long Form Census
There is nothing to be misunderstood there.
Part of it included another committee, because Mr. Martin wanted to include another committee and specifically argued that the status of women committee had considered this thing. He wanted to be very specific that it was there. There was no accident there.
It said, “in both official languages, and that these transcripts be tabled...” There's no difficulty understanding what that means in ordinary English. It was not an accident. It was not unintended. It was specifically intended “...as part of the HUMA Committee's study on the Long Form Census”.
The only issue Mr. Martin had a concern with--and we argued it at great length--was what the words “and considered” meant. I added those words “and considered” in my initial motion, because the term has some meaning. It means more than just appending it to the report, and that's where we spent a lot of time.
So to say that Mr. Martin's support was an unintended accident is totally off base.
Having said that, I would ask that members opposite defeat the motion or that Mr. Lessard withdraw the motion. Members can exercise the power of the majority by going through the report and excising those parts they think are not pertinent or relevant or that somehow shouldn't be in the report. We can then include them if we wish to. That would be the proper way to do it, and it doesn't do injury or insult to democracy, to the committee, to the motion, or to the integrity of the members who put the motion and supported it. There's a way to do that, but doing it in this fashion is a very grave and serious injury to the committee, to its members, and to the work they do.
You may disagree with me on that, and that's fair, but I would ask Monsieur Lessard to remove the motion; if he does not, I would ask that the members opposite at least not support it and that we deal with the report as we normally do.
That is my submission, Madam Chair.