Evidence of meeting #99 for Official Languages in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I'd like to go back to the same point that my colleague Ms. Kusie made and add to Mr. Beaulieu's remarks.
We're witnessing the trivialization of a very significant act committed here, and the situation is being ridiculed. We're doing what Mr. Serré earlier asked us not to do. Can you see the Liberals' inconsistency? The Liberals are filibustering to prevent us from voting on my colleague's motion. It's permitted, but that doesn't make it morally right.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
What you are ultimately telling us is that you aren't raising a point of order, is that correct? That's what I understand from what you're saying.
Mr. Samson, you may continue on Mr. Généreux's amendment, which concerns removal, resignation and a report to the House on last Monday's events.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my colleague for getting me back on track. I tend to go off topic from time to time because I cite so many examples. Thank you very much.
Let's not forget why we're here. The example I cited to the chair was that the leader of the official opposition had refused to recognize the authority of the Speaker of the House. What concerns us here is entirely different. I fail to understand why we're discussing this motion. In my opinion, the motion is moot since Mr. Drouin has formally apologized.
Mr. Chair, could we hear the initial motion? I'd like to understand Mr. Godin's motion before it's altered by the amendment. Could the clerk give it to us? It's very important for our discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
I can do that, Mr. Samson, but I remind you that the subamendment has already carried. That part is now set in stone.
In response to your request, I will read you the motion as it would be changed by the amended amendment: “Given the unacceptable remarks made by the Member—”
Conservative
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, you don't have to respond to that request because the focus of the debate is my colleague Mr. Généreux's amendment. If Mr. Samson hasn't done his homework and is asking you to read it a second or third time, that's his problem, not the committee's. If he doesn't know how to read, I can show him.
Mr. Chair, I withdraw my remarks. I have considerable respect for my colleague Mr. Samson and would not want to insult him.
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Chair, I apologize in advance, and that's intended for my colleague—
Liberal
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
The chair has the floor for the moment.
You have received the text of the motion, which includes the subamendment.
I agree with you, Mr. Godin; I won't read the motion a second time.
We now come back to Mr. Généreux's amendment. What is set in stone, and what you received from the clerk, is the passage beginning with the words “Given that” and as far as point d), which appears in blue letters. That has been adopted. What's left are points e) to h) inclusive. We have to debate them and hear all arguments for and against.
To summarize, the wording concerns the member's inadequate apology, the demand that he be removed from the committee, his resignation from certain committees and the report on the incident that should be made to the House.
Mr. Samson, I've been generous and have allowed you to speak, but you went off topic at times. You did return to it, but the next time will be strike three, and I'll give the floor to Mr. Serré and Mr. Drouin in that order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
The context is still the wording regarding the apology that has not been given and the anticipated consequences for the member. Consequently, our arguments should concern points e) to h) inclusive.
The floor is yours once again, Mr. Samson. Let me know if you have finished.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
I'll be finished soon. I'm coming to the end of what I wanted to say.
I just wanted to respond to my colleague Mr. Godin by saying that my reading ability is very good and that I couldn't find my document but that I now have it.
The text states, “Given the unacceptable remarks made by the Member of Parliament for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell…”. The member has apologized—
Conservative
Joël Godin Conservative Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair.
My colleague doesn't need to read what has already been accepted here in committee. Mr. Chair, you said that we would debate points e), f), g) and h). Consequently, it's the arguments for and against my colleague Mr. Généreux's amendment that should be raised.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
Mr. Godin, you may not consider it necessary for us to read it, but Mr. Samson is speaking specifically to this motion. You think this reading is unnecessary, but it may be necessary for others. I can't decide that. All I can tell you is that, as chair, I have to hear all individuals who wish to speak to this motion if they are addressing the points we have discussed.
Having said that, Mr. Samson, I am listening.
Liberal
Darrell Samson Liberal Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I also want to thank Mr. Godin, someone who definitely believes in democracy. He proved that a few moments ago, using words that may not have been up to scratch, but he quickly apologized. He withdrew his remarks, which is impressive. Actually, I shouldn't say that it's impressive, because I know him.
What's impressive is that my colleague apologized, formally and publicly, but in a manner deemed unacceptable.
That's what leaves me somewhat confused, I would say. The first idea in the motion was to request that the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell apologize.
I understand that the others are adding amendments. What the motion seeks has already been done. I see why Mr. Généreux and Mr. Beaulieu had their hands raised. You yourself asked if we were saying the same thing.
What happened is that he acknowledged that his motion was inadmissible. What was requested in the motion had already been done. He was looking for colleagues to improve it by proposing amendments.
I would like the members of the opposition to acknowledge my remarks today and to change their decision on how to proceed so that our committee can continue to be non-partisan. I would like—
Liberal
Bloc
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
That's false information. I had previously tabled a notice of motion requesting something more than an apology. We didn't want Mr. Drouin to get away with a mere perfunctory apology.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal René Arseneault
To avoid any confusion, I would point out that you didn't table it on time and that's why we didn't read it again.