Evidence of meeting #20 for Official Languages in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I would like committee members to listen to what I have to say; I think it could be of use.
I simply want to remind you that we have decided not to hear from our witness, but that we have no items on the agenda.
Is that so, Mr. Clerk?
March 11th, 2008 / 9:40 a.m.
The Clerk
My advice is that the effect of having overruled the decision of the chair meant that there wasn't immediately an order of the day, and therefore the floor would be open for a member to move to an order of the day.
To move to an order of the day or to move in camera are motions that don't require notice. They're non-debatable and non-amendable as well.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Okay. Excuse me. Just a moment, Mr. Mulcair.
Does Mr. Nadeau's motion require a 48-hour notice?
9:40 a.m.
Some hon. members
No, it is on the orders of the day.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
As the clerk has indicated to me, we would first have to determine what the committee wants to do and then come back to the work at hand.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Luc Harvey Conservative Louis-Hébert, QC
Mr. Chairman, I had not finished my point of order.
I do want to point out that members from all parties on the steering committee agreed to meet with the Statistics Canada officials.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Mr. Harvey, we already debated that issue. I cannot accept your point of order regarding the agenda because Statistics Canada is no longer on the orders of the day. We will not hear from the witness, and for the time being, there is no item on the orders of the day. The decision has just been overturned by committee members. Okay? If you have no other comments, I will give the floor to Mr. Lemieux. Let us try to move things forward.
We will hear from Mr. Lemieux, then Mr. Mulcair.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Yes. I have a couple of things to say.
The first is that the only thing you were overruled on was actually moving to listening to our witness when you said so. It doesn't mean that's no longer the order of the day. You were just overruled. You said “Let us move to the witness now”, and you were overruled on moving to the witness now. That doesn't mean you cannot move to the witness in five minutes.
In fact, Monsieur Nadeau said the same thing. He said we could discuss this and then we could get back to the witness. So we have not changed the order of the day.
The second thing is that at the beginning of this year, as a committee, we said 48 hours' notice is required for motions not pertinent to the order of the day. You cannot in the middle of the meeting redefine the order of the day, because if you did, you'd never need 48 hours. You could always just change the order of the day, drop your motion on the table, and change the order of the day back again.
As far as I'm concerned, our committee today is in disorder. We're not even able to get out of the starting blocks. We've invited a witness. We have a witness in front of us. We cannot listen to him. You're being challenged on your.... It's not even a ruling. You're being challenged to move in accordance with the order of the day. How can you be challenged on that? That's not a ruling.
A ruling would be if you said we're not moving with the orders of the day. Now that's a ruling. It's not a ruling of the day to say I'm going to follow the order of the day, because that is the order of the day. We have a witness, and it's the order of the day. So as far as I'm concerned, the whole challenging of the chair was out of order, because they're only challenging what's on the paper, which is the order of the day.
That's why I'm saying this meeting is in disorder right now. I think this whole meeting should be adjourned and we should pick it up again on Thursday, because we're not even in huis-clos and we're fighting about business. The opposition has moved this meeting into disorder. At the beginning of the meeting we had an order of the day and it was very clear: listen to a witness. That's all it was. Then they started discussing committee business not in huis-clos, not in camera, and they will not drop the subject. They overruled you on a ruling that you did not make, and now they're putting on more pressure, and we can't get anything done here.
This is extraordinary. I've never seen this on any other committee, and now they're saying in the middle of the meeting that they can actually overrule the order of the day, change the order of the day, so they can get around the 48-hour notice for motions. This is pandemonium, and the only reason they're able to get away with it is because there are seven of them against four. This is unheard of.
We're in disorder right now. We're not able to proceed. We're going against the actual written orders of the day. We should adjourn this meeting, and we should pick it up again on Thursday, when the order of the day will be to discuss committee business.
I'm sorry for the witness. We've called him here. He's taken time out of his schedule, but I think the witness sees we're unable—
9:45 a.m.
An hon. member
Point of order.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
No, I'm still on my point of order.
I think the witnesses can clearly see that this committee is not functioning today. I think anyone in this room can see that the committee is not functioning today.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
We should end the meeting and pull it back on Thursday. All the opposition wants to discuss is committee business; we can't discuss committee business because we're not in huis clos , and even if we were in huis clos, we cannot accept any motions without 48 hours' notice. That's what we decided as a committee. We voted on it in the very first meeting.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
Very well. Mr. Lemieux, I will accept your first point of order. You are correct. Mr. Lemieux is right about that issue, honourable colleagues; we decided not to hear from the witness just now, but that item is still on the orders of the day. It has been postponed. I would like to give you my understanding of the situation.
Second, a 48-hour notice is required, Mr. Lemieux, for issues that are not related to the work at hand.
Third, you suggested that we adjourn the meeting, but that is up to committee members to decide.
There are two other points of order, one from Mr. Mulcair and the other from Mr. Bélanger. I would like to point out to members that if they are related to committee business, we should perhaps continue our discussion in camera.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Mr. Chairman, I do believe I am entitled to speak. Now that you have given so much time to one of your colleagues, I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
You can speak for an hour, if you wish to do so.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
First of all, allow me to suggest that, from now on, instead of saying “point d'ordre,” which is an anglicism and a literal translation of point of order, we should rather use the term “rappel au règlement.” That would be a step in the right direction by our parliamentary committee. As well, rather than use the term “comité” in French, we should use the term “commission.” But that is something we could consider at a future date.
Furthermore, the agenda clearly states that: “Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), study of the analysis of the 2006 census.” There are witnesses and that is the item on the orders of the day. The opposition side had a question from the outset. Things could have ended there; Mr. Bélanger asked a very simple question.
In passing, I apologize, on behalf of the NDP, that the clerk was used as a blunt instrument in a dispute between parliamentarians. The clerk does not take sides. We can rattle on all we like, but I find it unworthy of us to use a member of the standing committee staff, someone whom we are very proud of and on whom we depend, to settle our scores.
I would like to add that, at the start of the meeting, we simply tried to find out where Bernard Lord was. Where is Waldo? We only wanted to know whether he would appear, whether he was hiding out with Godot and whether we would see him or not. The answer was: “we don't know”, go figure. That is the bilingual answer we received. He drafted a report, which was first given to the minister. It has not been made public. The report is nowhere to be found, as is the case with the minister.
9:45 a.m.
A voice
I have a point of order.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
We are on my point of order. You allowed your colleague Mr. Lemieux to speak, so you will have to hear me out.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
I would please ask you to get to the gist of your point of order.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Very well. We will not be hearing from the witness who is scheduled to testify because you have just been told that we were not ready to hear from him today.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Thomas Mulcair NDP Outremont, QC
Indeed. You are right, the decision was made. According to today's agenda, we are to hear from a witness. I am therefore talking about the witnesses. The issue I am addressing concerns our witnesses. I support the position of Messrs. Nadeau and Bélanger whereby under the rubric “Witnesses”—and we don't need a 48-hour notice to do this—we should find the name of Bernard Lord.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Steven Blaney
What you are raising is a point of debate and is not a point of order, because, as you clearly indicated, we are dealing with the census. As the chairman, I do not see a link between the proposed witness and the census. I would like to remind you that on Thursday, that is in less than 48 hours, the committee will be meeting in camera to discuss committee business, and we will be able to discuss these issues at length, as is our custom.
Now, I would like to move on to Mr. Bélanger for a third point of order. Perhaps we will then be able to hear from our witness. Thank you.
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With all due respect Mr. Chairman, at the start of the meeting, you had the clerk hand out two proposed timetables: one in French and one in English. It was once that information was handed out that questions were raised about Mr. Lord's appearance. All that committee members are asking for—on this side at least, I believe—is that Mr. Lord be invited again. I simply asked for some information from the clerk, and he confirmed that Mr. Lord had declined our invitation. Let's do that and then hear from our witness. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this is a follow-up to the proposed schedule you distributed. You did not distribute it in camera, but during a public meeting of our committee, as suggested by the steering committee. There is only one omission; the rest seems to be fine, Mr. Chairman. If we agreed to amend the proposed schedule and invite Mr. Lord back, we could quickly take a vote and would still have a full hour to hear from our witness this morning. I am doing this in all sincerity so that we can move committee business forward following your decision to hand out the proposed schedule. You made that decision, Mr. Chairman.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative