Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will comply with your orders.
Please remove my name from the motion. What the opposition is requesting is like the Montreal Canadiens asking the Toronto Maple Leafs if they would agree to put in a particular fourth line player on the ice. It's the principle of the motion. That's why it's inadmissible.
I could discuss the conduct of many other members. For example, I clearly remember a situation a few years ago in which Mr. Berthold accused another Quebecker of speaking French too often in the House of Commons. As far as I know, Mr. Berthold is still a sitting member in the House of Commons. Can he be asked to withdraw from the House of Commons? No. He's still here; he's still present. I'm reminding you of that incident: A Quebec MP told a Quebec minister that she spoke French too often. I'll stop there for that comment. It's up to him to judge the situation. However, I would point out that Mr. Berthold apologized and is still sitting as an MP. He has maintained his parliamentary right and may sit on all the other committees.
If the opposition members want to consult our whip to determine who we can put on the ice, then I can't wait to see the letters from the Bloc Québécois whip, the Conservative Party whip or the NDP whip. Can anyone confirm that we haven't received any letters from the whips? No, we've received no letters from any one of the whips wanting to know whether it's all right for a particular member from one of the opposition parties to sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages.
I would also remind you that, a few days ago, a committee chair made unparliamentary comments about a minister. I invite Canadians and anyone else who follows us to watch the appearance of Minister Boissonnault before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The chair behaved more like a Conservative MP than a committee chair. Was he asked to withdraw? Did the Conservative Party whip consult the Liberal Party whip to determine whether the chair could continue to sit on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics? As far as I know, there has been no such consultation to date.
That's the basis of the motion.
Furthermore, my dear colleague Mr. Samson, who has treated us to a chapter of the history of Acadia and its founding, very clearly explained the concept of competent authority. Like all other committees, the Standing Committee on Official Languages doesn't have authority to censure anyone or to do anything of that kind. You clearly said so, Mr. Chair. However, we're at a numerical disadvantage here. As in hockey, there's been an offside, but it's as though the referee couldn't do his job. The majority said no and expressed its disagreement. They think they scored a goal, and that's how things will stand.
That's why we rely on a fundamental principle. Take me out of this equation. This has nothing to do with me. It's related to the fact that we won't start consulting the other parties to determine who we can put on the ice. That makes no sense.
I see you're signalling to me that I have two minutes left, Mr. Chair.
Calling for a vote when there's been an offside or relying on a rule that, in principle, can't be found in the green book, our green bible, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, is something that we can't do. We won't accept it. Remove my name from this motion because this is simply unacceptable.
You also have to consider the precedent that would be set for all other committees. If a member indicates that he or she disagrees with remarks someone else has made, the majority of members could decide, because a motion has previously been tabled in the Standing Committee on Official Languages to prevent such a member from sitting on that committee. There will be no end to it. So you need to consider the precedent that would be set.
All of you will experience a similar situation at some point. It will happen to all parties. It's cyclical. The reds and blues take turns at being in power. The Bloc Québécois will never have a chance to be in power, but it nevertheless isn't immune to this kind of situation. As for the NDP, it may one day spend a little time in power, at least I hope it does. In other words, this kind of situation will happen to all of you at some point.
In short, our committee would be setting a dangerous precedent. That moreover is why the Standing Orders don't condone this kind of thing.
That's the problem with this motion. It's why an amendment to the motion has been moved. As my colleague mentioned earlier, we have no authority in this matter. It's our whips, and only our whips, who decide.
If we want to change the way things are done in committee and to start consulting opposition party whips, or vice versa, I can only extend a hand to the opposition: We're waiting for the opposition party whips to come and consult us to determine who can sit on the committees. Then I'll state my opinion on this issue, and I'm sure my colleague Mr. Samson and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Official Languages will want to do the same.
It is now 10:10 a.m. I will stop there, Mr. Chair, since you told us you would need five minutes at the end of the meeting.