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.