Mr. Chair, you might be able to tell that I am against the amendment. I am happy that we are having this debate, that it is not being held in camera. This will let anyone who reads the record of what took place here… I think that the clerk expressed herself well in response to Mr. Hoback's question. The committee is entitled to discuss the motion.
We all know that this motion came out of a debate between the House leaders. Mr. Reid even mentioned that he was there. So he could easily explain what it is about. He could even have requested a 10-minute adjournment to tell his colleagues about the situation, the how and why of this motion being introduced today, mainly to continue what happened in 2010 and fit it to the 2011 schedule. So we will never again have to experience the sad situation where the government could set aside a group of opposition days at the end of a session to avoid having a motion to overthrow it or a motion of censure. It is just another Conservative strategy.
I am not in favour of this motion because… Basically, the only people who could be heard here, if we ever decided to do an analysis or go more in-depth, are our House leaders. They are the ones who give us feedback on everything. It is important that anyone reading these transcripts fully understands that the committee is fit to discuss this motion today and is capable of doing so. Why is this motion before us? Because the House leaders could not agree, and we all know very well why they could not agree.
Our colleagues on the committee here—Mr. Reid, Ms. DeBellefeuille and Mr. Proulx—cannot tell us about it because they are required to maintain the confidentiality of the discussions that took place. But everyone knows why we are discussing this motion. I have always been amazed by the British system. It allows us to vote for or against a proposal, but there is also the filibuster that can totally prevent us from voting, and this is what the Conservative Party has been doing for some time.
The Conservative MPs will perhaps keep it up for three or four days. They have the right to. There is no problem. But, once again, it is important not to try to make people believe that they are not aware of what's happening. They are fully aware of the situation, and there is a reason why they do not want to support this motion. It is because they are unhappy with it. So, obviously, once again, I hope that… We will pay attention to them, listen to them.
Mr. Chair, earlier you had one of your decisions challenged. I do not think that this is something that will happen often. But the Conservatives are completely free to tell us the truth about their intentions. If they want to obstruct the debate, let them say so and everyone listening to us will know it. Let them not try to tell us that they want to do more analysis and do a more in-depth study of a file that they know very well. If this was the case, Mr. Reid could very well explain it in 10 minutes by requesting an adjournment to tell his colleagues why it happened this way at the meeting of the House leaders.
I think that the committee is entitled to propose the motion. The clerk said so today. What happened in 2010 is that an agreement was made between the parties. You'll remember that, in 2009, the reason why this agreement was made was because the House of Commons had asked the Speaker to rule on the question.
So today, this motion is the logical consequence of a decision by the Speaker of the House of Commons. All the parties had asked him to make a suggestion for 2010, and we are applying the suggestion in 2011. As Ms. DeBellefeuille mentioned earlier, it's for 2011, the calendar year beginning on January 1st. And I told you earlier that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is also the Minister of the Environment. He needs to go to Cancun in a week, as he made sure everyone knew.
In one way, we want to be reassured that we will start 2011 the same way as 2010, and this is the reason for the motion request today. It is true that it is an amendment of the Standing Order and that, last time, we did not proceed that way. There had been an agreement between the House leaders, but right now, there isn't one. It is simply because the House leader of the Conservative Party does not want an agreement, Mr. Chair. That is the reality.
If Mr. Reid wanted to explain to his colleagues in 10 minutes what happened between the House leaders, I would agree to let him do that. Then we could vote. I am against a deeper discussion of the subject because we are fully aware of what happened at the meeting of the House leaders, and so is the Conservative Party.
We hope to be able to help Parliament move forward, because the role of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is to make Parliament operate when all other ways of proceeding have failed.
Since nothing worked at the meeting of the House leaders, I think that it is up to us to make this decision and issue a report. Mr. Chair, if you bring this report to the House of Commons, Parliament will handle it. I think this is the best way to proceed.