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--