Environment Committee on June 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty's motion.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

—that is on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay. Put the motion, Mr. McGuinty, please.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Let me put this motion formally and make some comments about the notice of motion itself.

Partly in response to your comments, Mr. Chair, partly in response to some of the comments made by all colleagues at this table, let me first say that I am very disturbed by the fact that I had to bring this motion. I'm going to make my remarks short. First of all, let me read from the notice of motion, which says:

That, this committee immediately resume its agenda—as democratically adopted by the committee on Thursday, June 7, 2007 by a vote of 10 to 0—on the study of a post G8 debrief on climate change developments and Canada's position within the broader international context, and immediately bring witnesses Matthew Bramley (Pembina Institute) and Mark Jaccard, (Simon Fraser University) to testify, by video or teleconference if necessary; and, this committee call upon the chair to apologize to the committee for unilaterally rewriting today's agenda in a manner contradicting the expressed will of the committee.

As I say, I'm very disappointed in having to deal with this, but as a responsible member of Parliament, I have no choice. I have no other choice. Let me make it perfectly clear for everyone, and for Canadians who will listen or read or see reports about this meeting, that it is not about you, Mr. Chair, personally. This is about something larger. This is about a principle that is at stake, which is the independence of standing committees of the House of Commons. But it's also more than just that. It's about majority rule, which is the cornerstone of our democracy. We are supposed to be masters of our own destiny, as members of standing committees. For at least the second time this spring, the agenda has been overruled by the PMO after the committee expressed its specific will in a vote.

Let me put three basic facts to all. One week ago, on Thursday, June 7, in this committee, the parliamentary secretary representing the minister proposed that we consider clean air and smog today. The record shows that was put to a vote: yeas 4; nays 7. It was defeated. My colleague, Mr. Regan, who's not here this morning, put another motion: to consider the government's climate change plan in light of the government's performance at the G-8. That was adopted by this committee unanimously, 10 to 0.

Until two days ago I was in discussion with your office, Chair, and the clerk's office about witnesses for today's meeting. You informed me, and the clerk informed me, that two witnesses were scheduled for today's meeting: one, Finn Poschmann from the C.D. Howe Institute, hardly a witness who would come and testify for the opposition; and secondly, Matthew Bramley from the Pembina Institute, who I don't think speaks for anybody at this table, except for his own views and his own concerns. I then suggested to you two days ago, Chair, that Dr. Mark Jaccard, nobody's fool, who has just co-authored a paper that I think is equally disparaging of our record and the government's new plan—and I mentioned that to you verbally—might also be available and then found out later that of course he confirmed his availability.

Through this process, no doubt was ever expressed about this meeting going ahead. The subcommittee, which was struck to deal with this, was never advised. It was never even called. Yesterday, at 1:51 p.m., we all received notice of today's agenda. To my shock, the agenda read “smog”. I thought it was a mistake. I recall that Mr. Warawa's motion was defeated. But then I spoke with you, Chair, and there was no mistake.

My first reaction, in the heat of the moment, was that this is almost Stalinist. This is like our votes had been erased. And the parliamentary secretary laughs about it. When someone unilaterally writes the agenda and the chair capitulates, he acts as the long arm, in my view, of the Prime Minister's Office.

Frankly, I think a lot of parliamentarians from all sides of the House, including the government, are getting sick and tired of how Stephen Harper's dream world works. It flies in the face of Canadian parliamentary tradition and makes a mockery of democracy. We saw it at Queen's Park, under another regime, and we see it now.

What does it say--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Excuse me.

Mr. Harvey.

[Luc Harvey, Conservative, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

The chairman has said that it was his personal decision. I do not see why people are talking about Stephen Harper. The chairman has explained the situation, and it would be helpful to stay on topic, Mr. McGuinty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Sorry, I didn't see a point of order. Can you help me understand how this is a point of order?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

He's just saying that the attack on Mr. Harper is certainly not part of our debate right now.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let me move on then, Mr. Chair.

What does it say if we vote to do something and then we get a BlackBerry, probably to a staffer sitting by the wall over there, who taps the chair's shoulder, maybe taps the parliamentary secretary's shoulder, and our votes are erased, are evaporated? It means that the elections in Ottawa South, Halifax West, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, and Skeena—Bulkley Valley don't count. Apparently they just don't count.

It's my duty to move this motion. I would be remiss if I didn't move this motion. I pity, I really do pity, my colleagues from the government who are I think under pressure, huge pressure, to try to stand down debate precisely on what we're talking about.

Let me also just go to the transcripts--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Just a moment.

Mr. Vellacott.

[Maurice Vellacott, Conservative, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, Mr. McGuinty can very well speak for himself, for his colleagues, or for whoever else he chooses, but he dare not speak for me. I don't feel any pressure at this point. I believe, and I take it as a point of principle....

The chair relayed to us what happened and I believe it. That's accepting his record of it as the truth. I have no reason to believe otherwise. There was no pressure on me or for that matter on any of my colleagues.

So, Mr. McGuinty, you can well speak for yourself, but don't presume to speak for me.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Interesting, coming from a member who just presumed to speak for me 20 minutes ago.

I'd like to go back to the transcripts that you quoted yourself, Mr. Chair, in the last meeting. They make it very clear that the topic today includes a thorough assessment of the government's climate change plan.

You know, it's interesting. As the originator of the idea to have this meeting today, it struck me as quite interesting that we've not heard yet a single witness testify at this committee about the government's climate change plan who doesn't work for the government. It's fascinating. It's an interesting coincidence.

Let me quote what I said, Mr. Chair, in the meeting of last Thursday, June 7:

As the mover of the original idea for a G8 discussion, I just wanted for us, as a committee, to be clear. In the motion I put forward, which we're not discussing right now, the idea was to invite three or four independent parties, third parties, not contingent upon the single sherpa....

Let me read that again:

...not contingent upon the single sherpa, and have those three or four parties come in and give us some help in understanding the implications of the government's Turning the Corner plan--the interface between the government's Turning the Corner plan and any G8 outcomes, and what in fact took place at the G8, because there is no public messaging or information made available to Canadians now. What we are negotiating we will know, I guess, after the fact. An economist, along the lines of Don Drummond, an environmental group along the lines of the Pembina Institute, and some other—

At that point I was cut off by yet another point of order from the parliamentary secretary of the kind he used to cut off Mr. Bigras just moments ago. I'm not sure if it's in the government's 200-page manual about how to disrupt proceedings, but it's also interesting to note that neither Matthew Bramley nor Mark Jaccard are available for next Tuesday's meeting.

You know, Mr. Chair, you may have been here a lot longer than I have and you may have worked with some fine colleagues, but when you look at the actual chronology of events that underlie this motion, on Wednesday, June 6, we recommended two meetings post-G-8. The government blocked any discussion of the plan, no consensus was reached, and we reported it back on Thursday, June 7.

Mr. Warawa moved a motion. It was defeated. Mr. Regan moved a motion. It was supported ten to zero. Every member of the government's caucus voted in favour of it--every single one.

On Friday, June 8, I sent you an e-mail asking you if by Monday noon you could advise all members of the committee where we were, which witnesses were being scheduled for the Thursday, June 14, meeting.

On Tuesday, June 12, I recommended to you twice that Mark Jaccard be called for the Thursday meeting and I confirmed with your office that Mark Jaccard was available for the meeting, via e-mail copied to all members of this committee.

You advised me on Tuesday, June 12, two days ago, that both Mr. Bramley and Finn Poschmann are available for Thursday. You suggested that you would continue to seek to have David Mulroney attend, but said nothing about making his participation a condition precedent for the meeting going forward.

Yesterday, at 1:51, we heard that you had betrayed the will of the committee. You scheduled a different topic, and all witnesses had changed.

If I'm spending time, as we all do, in a grade 5 civics class, or receiving grade 8 students or grade 12 students about the role of procedure and how it interfaces with policy, as my colleague from the NDP said, this is about getting to crucial questions. And frankly, as one parliamentarian...there's a pattern. Mr. Warawa speaks of a pattern. There's a pattern at the official languages committee. There's a pattern at the international trade committee. There's a pattern in the release by a Conservative chairman of the 200-page manual to disrupt proceedings. There's a pattern here.

So it's my duty to move this motion. It's my obligation to move this motion. I move it, and I look forward to the comments of my colleagues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

All I can say, Mr. McGuinty, is that you have made a few assumptions that are totally incorrect. Obviously you're implying that pressure was put on. I can assure you that I didn't check with anybody. I made a decision based on my feeling that someone who was at the meetings was the best person to come and tell us exactly what happened, someone who had worked for months, and who had worked under the Liberal government for years and was very competent. They would be the anchor to what happened. That's the very person you'd want to hear from, if you're sincere at all about getting to environmental issues and hearing about what happened at the G-8.

Maybe we should have just cancelled the meeting today—that would have been fair enough—and then got all of the people. But some of the people you suggested, the Don Drummonds, etc., weren't available; they just weren't. So you're implying something that is totally untrue. You're implying that I went to somebody and asked them what I should do; I didn't do that. I made a decision. It's my decision. You're saying it's the wrong decision. Fair enough; we won't always agree on things.

The fact is you're implying I was a puppet, but I never thought that of Mr. Caccia. He changed meetings. We'd come in here not really knowing whom we were going to be seeing, even though we had asked to see this person, this person, this person; that's how it is. In the ideal world you live in, maybe it's different, but there's reality too. The reality is that we should listen to somebody who was there and then listen to the opinions on the other side.

Anyway, let's go to the speaking order.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair,

It was mentioned a number of times, ten to zero. We did, as members of the government...there was consensus achieved. And how did we achieve that consensus?

I would like to back up a little. I shared with the committee my concern that I did not think it was realistic to have the witnesses who would be talking post-G-8, witnesses who were at the G-8 and able to advise the committee what happened, so that we could, as a committee discuss...and hear post-G-8. Those were the points that I made, and I moved a motion that we would then hear from them at a later time, about four days later, instead of on a Thursday, on a Tuesday.

Mr. McGuinty is quite right. That motion was not supported, but the point was made and there was a clear agreement, a clear consensus, I thought, and that's why we supported it, that it was going to be a balanced approach. It was focusing on the sherpa who was involved there, and that's why we supported it. The sherpa was going to be involved. We were assured of that, and I was assured by members of this committee, Mr. McGuinty being one, that these people would be able to come at short notice.

I would just like to read from what happened on the 7th. It reads:

The Chair: I did try to find out when the sherpa would be back from the meeting, and I was told probably not until Sunday at the earliest.

He was referring to the G-8. He continued, “Of course, that was something to be discussed and considered as well.”

A little later the chair--you--said:

As I mentioned, just to answer Mr. Warawa's question, I believe this group should be centred around the sherpa, who has been working for months and months on the negotiations. So you centre it around him and you put people, basically, on the economic side of it, the scientific side of it, the environmental side of it, and we have a round table, literally, at which everyone gets an opportunity to ask these people the questions they want about what happens. That's the intention of this meeting.

So clearly the sherpa is the focus.

You went on to say:

Can we get all of those desirable people by Thursday? I don't know. I know that the sherpa, I've been told, will return on Sunday. So that's all I know at this point, in answer to that question.

He was answering my question.

I asked a question then. I said:

A point of order. My understanding is that we were going to allow you and a group to bring a balanced approach, and what's being proposed is not a balanced approach.

I was referring to Mr. McGuinty when he mentioned Matthew Bramley.

It reads further:

The Chair: Definitely we will try to achieve the balanced approach. That to me is the only successful way of doing this. We don't need just one side of any issue. So we've tried to live with that throughout all of our meetings, and I would intend to do that again.

I can't tell you today who's available next Thursday and who isn't. We obviously will go after the very best we can get, because I hope we're here to further our understanding of the G8 process and what's going to happen.

So I'm not exactly sure what that means, but I think that's very positive for all of us. We need to hear that from experts who can interpret what in fact has been agreed to.

This is again referring to the G-8.

So, Chair, the record shows it was very clear, and just in response to Mr. Bigras, we need to respect the decision of June 7. I agree, we need to respect that decision, and that decision focused around having a balanced group of witnesses, which included the sherpa.

What we've heard now from you, Chair, is clearly that it was not possible to have it today.

I don't want to waste time. I could go through Marleau and Montpetit. It is in there.

Mr. Chair, you have that authority, along with the clerk, to have adjourned that meeting because you could not get those witnesses. But instead of adjourning the meeting, you've gone ahead and provided the other topic, which was discussed, and I think that suggested topic came from Mr. Cullen. So I think you've done that in good faith.

The point I want to make is that the motion has two things. First of all, should we be hearing from two identified witnesses, not as normal policy and the normal understanding of June 7, a balanced approach, but having just two people suggested by Mr. McGuinty and to hear from them immediately. That's the first half of the motion.

The second half of the motion asking for an apology I interpreted as a vicious attack on your integrity. I consider it a confidence issue in you, Mr. Chair. The normal procedure is that we accept the word of a fellow parliamentarian, a chair, as a statement of fact. That is the protocol here and that's the accepted rule. Mr. McGuinty is alleging that's the chair's statement to this committee; my understanding is that he's indicating that your statement is false. I consider that a direct attack against you and your integrity. I definitely don't agree with that, and that's how I'm interpreting it. Mr. McGuinty, you can clarify that if it's not an attack.

Definitely, there are two different issues here, Chair. I'd like to move, as an amendment, that they be dealt with separately, that the motion be divided into two parts and that we deal, first of all, with the issue of a demand for an apology from you. I don't think it's warranted. I'm quite opposed to that, but to deal with it fairly, it should be divided in two, so I move as an amendment that it be dealt with separately.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

If we can suspend for one minute, the clerk needs clarity as to whether we can divide this motion or not. We'll see what his response is, and then we'll go to Mr. Vellacott, Mr. Bigras, Mr. Godfrey, and Mr. Cullen.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I don't believe you need me to read the section, but it says when there are two parts, or deemed to be two parts, a motion can be accepted, and whether to allow it to be split is my decision. Obviously, I can read this to you, if you want to hear it, but I believe it's pretty clear that Mr. Warawa's motion is in order and it would allow us to split that into two parts.

So now we will debate Mr. Warawa's motion and then vote on it. Are there comments on that motion?

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

I suppose this is a question I was trying to get in earlier that we can do now. It's a question to you, Chair. Do you consider this part that Mr. Warawa has cited here about the apology a motion of confidence?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, I do, because I did exactly what I felt was the thing to do without any coercion or guidance. Obviously, if I don't have that ability to make decisions when I have the gentleman I've been trying for 14 hours to get hold of, why have a chair?

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

There are two thoughts to that. One is I don't--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Yes, Mr. Bigras.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Chairman, you have indicated that this a confidence motion. Nevertheless, I would like the clerk to confirm that the motion that is before us is a confidence motion.

What is the basis for deciding that this is a confidence motion? Our view is that it is not a confidence motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Again, it's my interpretation that is the one that counts. I was quite surprised....The first part of the motion I can understand; the second part of the motion I did take personally, so that's the answer, Mr. Bigras.

Mr. Cullen.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

We're talking about this motion now.