Environment Committee on June 14th, 2007

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

I know there's been some discussion around this. I'm wondering if you could re-clarify, I suppose, your position.

Are you still viewing this as a motion of confidence for us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

As explained, Mr. Cullen, I felt that I did what I was instructed to do, as best I could, when witnesses were not available. I felt that having the sherpa was extremely important. As someone who was there, who was part of the process for months, he could very clearly and concisely say this is what happened, this is the government's position, and this is the final statement. He was the guy literally writing it, and he could very clearly tell us where that was at. We could then get opinions on that, which is what I wanted to do.

So that's what I attempted to do. I can't apologize for that. I had to make a decision. This guy was not available to talk to again. He was leaving town, or that's what I was told. I had to make a decision. I didn't have time to call everybody.

I guess I find it offensive to be asked to apologize for making a decision. Really, a chairman has to sometimes make decisions. I felt we would accomplish both a Tuesday and a Thursday meeting.

So I do take offence at this motion, because it does call in.... We've heard it implied that in fact I was told that this is what I had to do, which is totally, 100% false.

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

That was my question. But just to clarify on the distinction, there's being offended by something--and I can appreciate that--and then there's seeing it as a matter of confidence. It seems there's a bit of a gulf between the two.

I assume you can't be convinced.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I don't feel I should be asked by this committee to apologize for doing what I thought was the right thing. Now, should I change how I would do it in the future? You're darn right. I can learn from that. I mean, I've gotten the message.

The point is that I'm not going to apologize for what I did. I didn't think I did anything incorrectly.

[An hon. member]

You just said you did.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Well, no, I made a decision. I made a decision. You're questioning that decision. If that says that I made the wrong decision and you want me to apologize, I can't do that.

Mr. Rota.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to talk to the point that makes it a point of confidence.

As you mentioned, you did what you thought was right. I don't doubt that for one second, Mr. Chair. I think you did what you thought was in the best interest of this committee. However, I don't agree with you when you say it wasn't a mistake.

I think it was in conflict with most of the people here, which qualifies it as an error. The first time you do something, it's an error. If you do it repeatedly, a second or third time, then I'd begin to question you and say, okay, this is a confidence issue. But right now it's just something that was done and that didn't agree with everyone here. It was an error.

I would say an apology is not that far out of order. It's not about confidence in the chair. You were doing what you thought was right, and for that, I don't think it's confidence. But I do think it is a decision that is the chair's, whether it is confidence or not. It's not our decision, or we're not voting on a confidence issue.

So I just wanted to make that point. I don't think you should take it as a confidence issue. An error was made. I mean, the last time I checked, you were human. Humans make mistakes. You made an error. Just a simple “I'm sorry” is all it would take.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. McGuinty.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Just for the record, Mr. Chair, as the mover of the motion, I would like to note that in the remarks I made earlier, I explicitly stated that it's not about you, personally. I have never spoken of this motion as a matter of confidence. In fact, every single member who has spoken about the confidence issue has disagreed with your own interpretation. I would implore that you not take this as a non-confidence issue. It's not. It was not put into the text of the motion.

Procedurally, if the official opposition were interested in pursuing such an outcome, other procedures would have been adopted. This is not what this notice of motion is about at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Cullen.

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

I have made my comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Okay.

Mr. Warawa.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have a question to you and then a comment.

Have you, in your time here on the Hill, ever been asked for an apology in the form of a formal motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

I've certainly never seen that happen in a committee before. In the House, certainly, that's a usual occurrence, and has been for all the years, but no, not in a committee.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Not in a committee setting. So this is very much out of the norm. You've provided an explanation of why you did it.

Again, my opinion is that I support it. It was ten to zero. There was unanimous support to have a balanced approach, and the sherpa was a major part of that. I don't want to waste time reading it into the record again: your testimony was very clear. The sherpa was part of it, and it was going to be a one-day thing. So what you proposed was a Tuesday meeting with the sherpa in the first hour and with the other group in the second hour of the meeting.

That was at your discretion. It's very clear in the policy guide. And I've read that. I don't need to read that again. It's very clear that it's within your authority, along with the clerk's, and that decision was made.

So you've got a motion. We don't see this happening--that a committee would be asking for a motion. In the introduction of that motion, there were comments made that indicated that you were being manipulated by the PMO, which, again, was quite inappropriate.

I think there's been some backpedalling on that position, but clearly I think you've provided an explanation, and I think the appropriate measure is to remove this motion. I would ask the mover to remove this motion. You've shared that you're considering it a confidence motion--the appropriate measure--and I'd ask, through you, that Mr. McGuinty remove this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As I indicated earlier, I am sorry to see us having to vote on this motion. I understand what the parliamentary secretary is telling us, but in order to have balance of the kind he would like to see in today's meeting, I would point out that, according to the decision made on June 7, we needed to be focusing on the G8. Mr. Chairman, you have taken the trouble in the past to get in touch with us on less important issues to indicate changes. However—and I do not want to have to quote Marleau and Montpetit because it is not necessary—you should at least have contacted me. I do not necessarily want us to use a motion here. If you at least had the humility to admit to having made a mistake...

I feel that this motion is not a confidence motion. However, I think that we cannot allow ourselves to accept the process that has been initiated. If we accept this, it means that we will find out about the agenda through the clerk and that votes taken by the committee will be called into question. You should at least have contacted me to ask me whether the agenda could be changed, given that it was difficult to get hold of witnesses and a number of them were not available. But that was not done.

I will therefore be obliged to vote in favour of this motion, which is not a confidence motion. I want you to know that if you step down, it will be your decision and we will interpret it as a resignation, which I hope will not happen, by the way. I am sorry, but we cannot stand by and say nothing when this kind of decision is made. But if you agree to acknowledge that a mistake was made, we can reconsider. Up to now, you continue to say that your decisions were right. We on this side cannot support that assessment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Mr. Bigras, I will repeat what I said before. It was at night. He required a decision; he was leaving town. I didn't have time to phone everybody that evening. I made that decision. As required, I felt he was critical. He was the only person we could get who was there, so that was the decision.

Would I have liked to have called everybody? Naturally. Obviously I would have. I'm telling you, this wasn't available. I spent all day trying to get a hold of this guy. I only received final confirmation the next morning at about 8:30, or whatever time it was. So those are the timelines, and that's what I'm telling you.

I feel that I'm being questioned about this. As in the past, under normal circumstances, would I want to call you? Naturally. I would have liked to have told you about the trouble we were having, but obviously that didn't happen this time. Will it happen again? I would certainly hope not. Have I learned from the process? Yes, but when I saw this in front of me, I took it as a confidence.

Mr. Vellacott.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would say to Mr. Bigras, who just spoke, that what people are stuck on at this point is the fact that part of the motion is to have a particular meeting with respect to the G-8, and thereafter on a particular date.

Please also keep in mind, colleagues, that part of the motion was in terms of how that would be set up and done. It was about having the sherpa in, about having people who were actually there.

So you can play with the details and some minor point about the fact that you have a meeting happening on a certain date, but you miss the big picture. It was being set up in a particular way to have Mr. Bramley, if you choose, and Mr. Jaccard, but to have others as well.

So if you want to go bullheadedly ahead and have a meeting on a particular day, yes, you wanted one side of the motion, a particular part of the motion, but you're not honouring the full intent of the motion. The more important, bigger-picture part is to say that we want to get some balance here, some direct input from people who were at the G-8.

You can kind of proceed and say, well, we kind of—

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

Why didn't he call me? He didn't call me.

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

He never called me either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

Can I ask for the committee's indulgence for a minute? We have Mr. Jaccard on the line. Mr. Bramley is not quite on the line yet, but he has only a short time to talk to us; ten minutes was suggested. I need your guidance as to whether we go ahead. We have a motion that asks us to.

They're still trying to hook up, but is it your wish to have both of them, and then carry on with this?

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

We're debating a motion on the floor, and you have to have unanimous consent—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bob Mills]

You need unanimous consent to do that. I want to advise you of what's happening.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

In order for us to continue the meeting, whatever happens with the motion we're about to vote on, you're just asking for agreement that we continue—