Okay, 1997. I believe Mr. Godfrey was first elected sometime in the 1990s. So they have been here a number of years.
I cannot and will not conclude that the incorrect rulings by the chair were done because members did not understand the rules of this place. In fact, I would suggest that the chair of the day, Mr. Mills, who is a very experienced parliamentarian, knows the rules, understands the practices and procedures of this House.
Therefore, I can only conclude that the ruling given by Mr. Mills was done because of the confusion of the time, because of the fact that there was another committee trying to enter this room, the committee room, and there was some jostling. But that's all right.
The fact is, though, that since we identified the fact and since there is proof positive, both in the transcripts and in the argument that I have been presenting, that there had been a breach of protocol, since we have identified without dispute--there is indisputable proof, in other words, in my view, that there was a breach of protocol--since we know that to be true, then we need to take corrective action. That's simply all I'm suggesting here, that we need to take corrective action.
I suppose there are some who again would take the line that, well, what's done is done; let's not rehash it. That is absolutely the wrong attitude to have in this case. I would suggest, strongly suggest, that as parliamentarians we all need to hold ourselves up to a higher standard in terms of how we conduct ourselves.
We clearly don't have a dispute with the fact that Mr. Rodriguez wants to bring his bill forward, but I do want to suggest--and I made these points, I believe, earlier in my commentary--as evidenced by the concurrence motion brought forward by the official opposition whip, that one of the provisions in the standing orders that guide us in this place is that while it gives, certainly, opportunities for all members to observe the procedures and practices that guide this place, it is also quite clear in both the spirit and intent that the government should be allowed to govern.
One of the offshoots of this motion is in fact that, if this motion was discussed, and I don't see how it can be discussed today because of the inappropriateness of the motion itself, the government would not be allowed to govern.
What we need to be doing, what we should be doing, in my humble view, is dealing with the piece of legislation known as Canada's Clean Air Act, brought before this committee. That is the issue, as far as future discussions are concerned.
That said, what we have is a private member's bill. This has been something where, frankly, on this Kyoto plan, or so-called plan, many witnesses have come forward and discredited the fact that targets are unachievable, it's an obsolete plan, and we need something new and different and fresh, something that's made in Canada. That's certainly something that the government wishes to pursue, but what we are doing here is discussing the fact that a motion to discuss a private member's bill, which basically was supposed to revert this Parliament back to a Kyoto plan, one that has been widely panned and discredited, should be discussed and debated at this committee.
The member certainly is within his rights and within his purview to submit any private member's bill. That's again one of the fundamental tenets of Parliament, that private members have the ability to bring forward private members' bills, bills that they feel are of importance either to themselves or their constituency or Canada. In this case, Mr. Rodriguez has brought forward a bill that would, in effect, if it were passed into law, revert Canada's environmental plan back to observation of the so-called Kyoto plan.
Even though I have serious reservations personally about the so-called Kyoto plan, even though I strongly believe that the targets established in the so-called Kyoto plan are completely unachievable, I would suggest to you that it is the right of the member to bring it forward, and I have no argument with that. In fact, I sincerely wish that I would have an opportunity, and perhaps I will in the future, to engage in debate with Mr. Rodriguez on the merits of his bill. But the fact of the matter is that while it is certainly within his parliamentary rights to bring a bill forward to the House, which he has done--and I would suggest, so far quite successfully, since it did pass second reading--therefore, while it is his complete right to have it introduced at the committee level, to which it has been referred, and that is this committee, of course, the environment committee, while it is his perfect right to do that, I would suggest that it should be so done in a manner that is consistent with the protocols that have been established by this committee. That is the point in question, that the protocols that this committee itself has established have not been observed.
I fully agree with the fact that Mr. Rodriguez is enthusiastic. Due to comments I've heard from members of the opposition, I am fully knowledgeable of the fact that, after careful examination and full debate on Mr. Rodriguez's private member's bill, the majority of committee members will, I suspect, probably vote in favour of his private member's bill and try to get it back to the House for third reading as quickly as possible. I have no doubts that that will happen. So I can understand the enthusiasm that Mr. Rodriguez has in his attempt to get this before the committee as quickly as possible. I'm sure his feelings are that the sooner he can get it before this committee, the sooner it will then be back before the House. So I can understand the motivation behind his enthusiasm to bring it before this committee.
I have no problem with that enthusiasm. In fact, I applaud that. Even though we may disagree, I have great respect for Mr. Rodriguez. I think his thoughts on the environment are a little misguided, but I respect the fact that he has them, and part of the democratic process we have in this place is our ability to agree to disagree. That will always be the manner in which this place and business within this place is conducted.
Mr. Chair, there will always be the adversarial component to this place. Frankly, this place would be a boring place to do business in if we did not have, from time to time, competing views, and at times, I would suggest, competing interests.
The fact of the matter is that while I respect the ability of any member to bring forward an idea or a proposed bill--