Mr. Chair, I'm not going to put you on the spot because obviously you didn't know that at first there, because you seemed a little shocked. It does speak, though, to the professionalism of the House of Commons staff, including our clerk, because clearly they need to be able to read the will of Parliament and parliamentarians. If they can type it up on a screen in black and white, then they might be able to see that.... Again, as the former clerk of the Privy Council said, when the Prime Minister gets in a mood, he gets what he wants.
If certain members feel in a mood, I guess the clerk would want to be ready to do his job so that we can invite other committee members to participate. That, to me, again stems.... While the clerk may be ready to send out those letters, maybe I'll just simply ask again, Mr. Chair, to the clerk: Have other committees...? Are they aware that this request will be coming to them? Have we, through any means, informed them? No, so we will be hitting them on a Friday, most likely. They'll probably open their mail tomorrow, because I assume we'll use internal mail, maybe email, maybe late tonight. Then, suddenly, their chair is expected to write back.
Mr. Chair, I would look to you, because I have not had the good favour of the support of my colleagues to ever be a chair of anything. Do you know what? After listening to myself, I understand exactly why. Despite that shortcoming, Mr. Chair, would you, if you received an email from a fellow chair outlining a parameter similar to this late Thursday night that said, “Oh, by the way, you have to let us know by four o'clock tomorrow”.
I have a sense that most chairs would immediately say back, “Do you know what? This can't be done.” If it can't be done, why would we put on the show for the people who are here and pretend that this is proper due process? I reject that because, do you know what? Politics.... This is really what gets to me sometimes. People say that politicians are too concerned about image. They're right.
If this was a business environment, you wouldn't hit a colleague from another department with a request that you know they can't meet. You don't do that, yet somehow, because they want to be able to support or have the image that they're supporting MP Ste-Marie's amendment, which I think was made in good faith, they are basically saying, “Okay, we don't want to look bad, so we'll make it look like it's a real bona fide attempt.”
Now, just from reading the motion, we know that it's not. I know that, if I was a chair of the committee, I would immediately say, “Are you joking? I can't consult my members today. Many of them are travelling.” Perhaps many of them are going to be sitting late tomorrow night, if the government wants to, because of that early extended session.
There are so many things here, but I go back to MP Chambers. I go back to his consistency in that he would like to see cooler heads prevail, that he would like to see a little bit more optimism and that he's an eternal optimist. Do you know what? I think he's changing even me by his presence here today. Maybe we can have...or MP Beech would be texting with whoever wrote this motion. I hope he's not berating that individual because, obviously, maybe, the chief of staff or deputy chief of staff said to get something out there. Maybe he's texting that individual and saying, “Perhaps we need a rethink of this, because this isn't looking good for us, and it's not working well for Parliament.”
I don't know. I don't have that insight. I would just hope in good faith that is exactly what is happening right now. As it stands, this particular amendment....
That reminds me, Mr. Chair. I mentioned that we had some witnesses coming, some in person and some online. Most of them took it really well.
I go back to some of the concerns that I'm hearing. The members of Parliament for North Okanagan—Shuswap, Kelowna—Lake Country, and those in Ontario have significant manufacturing issues around the luxury tax. They want those witnesses to come here. They told me that. Industry should not be punished because we were unable to come to a proper process here.
Mr. Chambers has said that he's an eternal optimist. I certainly want to be one. I certainly hope that my interventions today have had some effect on some of the other members here, and that they recognize that we have to go back to the drawing board. As much as I'd like to have the Minister of Finance for another hour, maybe that's not up there, but they should be trying to do something.
First of all, it should not be the subamendment. The subamendment itself, Mr. Chair.... The programming motion is terrible. I'd love to scrap all of that. Maybe we should at least look at the subamendment, and maybe decide to withdraw it, because it's just unworkable.
Maybe what I should do, Mr. Chair, is just finish up with a few more thoughts here for other members who have had time to digest what I've had to say, some who are possibly chewing on it right now. There are many counting on us. There are many people right now seeing gas prices, home prices...and uncertainty on the world stage. They just want to see us do something.
The finger can be pointed at me, Mr. Chair. They could say, “You're part of the problem; you're holding back.” Well, no, Mr. Chair, what I'm doing is actually holding on. I'm holding on to a process that, if we can all get around this, this committee will be better off. This bill might actually be properly studied, and then we can send it over to the other place. If the other place can define for itself that June 10 is when all its committees should reply back, why are we not telling committees until this particular subamendment gets passed? Why are we waiting until the last moment and saying, “Oh, by the way, Friday, May 13”, when other committees in the other place have until June 10?
I probably stood on my high horse too much today, but it concerns me. Why? Because I've grown to love this place. There's no greater compliment to members of Parliament, when they are considered a House of Commons woman or a House of Commons man, where they believe in the institution regardless of their position. I met ministers who show reverence for this place and understand that.
Your predecessor, Mr. Chair, the honourable Wayne Easter, he was a House of Commons man. He knew that in this place ministers needed to be accountable. He was critical of his own government when it would try to play games that excluded Parliament or diminished Parliament's light.
Do you know what, Mr. Chair? I've heard many Liberals cite over the past x number of years, populism this, democracy dies in darkness, and all that stuff. Well, guess what. Here we are. Should we actually start doing things together and listening to one another? This is a great opportunity to start. I would really hope that government members can appreciate that. I really hope my colleagues in the Bloc and the NDP don't feel that I have taken my time here inappropriately, because I'm here to defend their rights, and I would hope the government members would say the same of mine.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the time and, again, I thank everyone for listening. Perhaps we can have some more discussion about the withdrawal of this particular motion.
MP Beech, please, give us back our committee.