Evidence of meeting #15 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was survey.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
I think Ms. Barbot summed up my thoughts very well. If the motion is not in order, will the Speaker of the House have to deal with the question? Could we decide on whether to adopt the motion? Then, if it is not an order, the Speaker of the House will be able to rule on the issue.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
If Ms. Barbot agrees, I would like to suggest that we do some research and decide on Thursday. Could we set aside some time on Thursday?
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
Raymond Simard Liberal Saint Boniface, MB
No, that is not what I am recommending we do, Mr. Chair. I believe that we should debate the motion today and vote on it. I have been a member of this committee for four and a half years, and similar recommendations have been made during that time and even, I believe, for the past 25 years. It is quite within the mandate of the Committee on Official Languages to make such recommendations; that is what we are here for. Otherwise, in fact, we lose our very purpose.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
I have only one question, which the clerk can perhaps answer. Is the member's argument valid? If so, then shouldn't the motion be in order?
Mr. Godin.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
No. Mr. Chair, our experts are here and they have given us their interpretation. It is directly within our mandate. I ask that we vote on the motion. Everyone is sharing their opinion. Will we, each time a motion is presented, wait a week before putting it to a vote because Yvon Godin wants to give his opinion? I respect the fact that we all have an opinion, but according to the opinion of our colleague Daniel Petit, the experience of our clerk and our experience with the $700 million Dion plan, our mandate has always been to provide the House of Commons with our advice. This committee operates under the Official Languages Act, which gives us the mandate to make recommendations.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:43 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Sorry for the interruption, but it has just been brought to our attention that the motion refers to the wrong Standing Order. What Standing Order should it refer to?
10:43 a.m.
The Clerk
Standing Order 108.
10:43 a.m.
Committee Researcher
It would be preferable to have it fall under Standing Order 108(3)(f).
10:43 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Mr. Petit is right with regard to Standing Order 108(2), but concerning Standing Order 108(3)(f)...
10:43 a.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
We could amend the motion by replacing section 108(2) by section 108(3)(f).
10:43 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Regardless of whether the motion is presented pursuant to Standing order 108(3)(f), the substance does not fall under subsection (3)(f). I believe there is a problem concerning that subsection. There is a battalion of clerks and people ready to provide us with advice. Why not ask them whether the motion complies with subsection (3)(f)? Given their large number, they will certainly be able to present us with a legal opinion by Thursday.
The analyst said that he had checked the matter. But that is not true: I checked. There is a much broader interpretation, but that is not the case in this specific matter. We are dealing with this document until proven otherwise.
10:45 a.m.
Bloc
Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC
The motion has been available for two weeks already. I believe that it would has been quite easy for the member to consult with the clerk before today.
Given all this, I suggest that we move on. If it turns out that this is not within our mandate, then the motion will simply be rejected. However, that should not stop us. We have tried to find some middle ground by exchanging sections, but now, we are no longer talking about section numbers but about content.
I do not want to go around in circles. Besides, a vote as been called on the amendment and the whole motion.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Guy Lauzon
Are there any other comments?
We don't have any further comments?
Madame Boucher.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
10:45 a.m.
The Clerk
Mr. D'Amours presented a first amendment. We should therefore put it to a vote.
Do you want me to tell you what it was about?
