Okay. I may take some time.
Let me begin, as I think is appropriate when one is dealing with acrimonious circumstances, by saying that when I look across the way at my Liberal colleagues, I have respect, actually, for all the colleagues I see over there, but I want to mention the respect I have for the individual Liberal members opposite.
I've always enjoyed Mr. Owen's intervention and particularly low-key manner, which he once again demonstrated today. I am of course aware that Mr. Owen wasn't actually in the room at the time and therefore is offering, I think, a very wise general observation.
Karen, I've dealt with you in the past and have always thought very highly of you. I remember, actually with particular fondness, one occasion when you came over to try to assist me in getting something that was out of order in order--the presentation of a petition. I'm sure you don't remember it, but I do, a petition that was not done in the proper manner but by people who had a heartfelt interest in the issue.
They'd submitted a white ribbon, with lots of signatures, on the issue of child pornography. The fact that they didn't know the formal rules did not diminish the fact that they felt strongly about child pornography. In recognizing the fact that they couldn't be allowed, you were very good at saying you were willing to find unanimous consent to allow something to be tabled that would not normally be allowed to be tabled. I appreciate that. I thought that was a very classy thing to do.
I would have gone to you next, Marlene, but since Marcel is seated, talking to Karen--I'm going in the seating order--I'll just mention that I've always thought highly of Marcel as well. I thought him a very intelligent, thoughtful, and gentlemanly person in his conduct, towards me at any rate, and conduct that I've been able to see.
Then, going back to the very beginning of my career as a parliamentarian in early 2001, I'm not sure if Marlene remembers this, but I remember that she approached me and asked if I would be willing to second a bill that was being introduced on an issue of non-partisan environmental concern--okay, Marlene, you do remember that--on non-economic measures of well-being, and particularly environmental well-being, alternative measures of well-being. So in the very first legislative action I was engaged in, in the House of Commons, I was actually working in cooperation with Marlene. I have fond memories of that, and consequentially of Marlene herself.
I say all of that because I'm trying to find ways of keeping the temperature down as we deal with this issue.
I do have an objection to the issue being brought forward in this manner--actually, two objections. I have the same objection as my honourable colleague, the government whip, has about the fact that it was brought forward contrary to, to my recollection, an agreement--and I want to return to that in a second. As a starting point, I have another concern, and I'll return to this in more detail a bit later.
My concern is simply this: the manner in which the motion is presented. It was of course presented without notice. Our rules permit that, so it's in order, of course. But notice could have been given nevertheless, and the failure to give notice suggests--I do stand to be corrected--that the intention is to have the motion adopted, not without debate, obviously, but without amendment. It's hard to see how one would amend this motion and therefore how one would amend any of the standing orders if such amendment were appropriate.
The way the motion is worded right now is:That this committee recommends that the Standing Orders in effect on October 5, 2006, including the provisional Standing Orders, be made permanent, and
That the adoption of this motion be reported to the House forthwith.
So it's sort of hard to see how you would say, well, they'd be adopted with the following amendments to standing order this or that, particularly when that would presumably involve some degree of discussion and potentially the bringing of witnesses before the committee, that kind of thing. I just don't see how one could do that. This is really a motion designed in such a way as to make amendment practically impossible.
I could see that it's possible to defeat the motion, but it's not possible to amend it. Therefore, we're faced with, effectively, a choice between defeating the motion and saying that what we want is the Standing Orders to revert to what they were prior to February 18, 2005, when the provisional standing orders came into effect or, alternatively, taking them just as written without any alteration, where perhaps alteration is merited.
Truthfully, I don't know where alteration is merited. That was a question I had hoped to look at and consider, as one does with any technical matter of this nature, at a later point in time--during the break, essentially--but certainly as a part of the process that had been laid out in the House leaders meeting.
Having now turned to the House leaders meeting and in so doing I--