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.