Thank you very much, Mr. Murphy. I'm going to give you a grand opportunity to fulfill all those very words you just spoke to me, that you feel I neglected. However, before I do, for the record I will go through my original statement on the ruling, for the benefit of the committee and those listening today.
I have to say that I'm more than troubled by the insistence of the opposition in introducing this motion. It flies in the face of what this committee should be about doing, and they know it. However, for the record, this is it.
As observers of this committee will note, this committee is meeting for the second or third time in public to discuss committee business. We have now had five consecutive meetings in which certain members of the committee insisted on pressing their point before we could do the work that this committee has already agreed should proceed.
In three of those meetings, witnesses who travelled across the country were unable to testify because of the opposition's antics. It is my opinion that these actions do not show proper respect for the witnesses. I will not allow the witnesses at my committee to be treated in this manner; hence there are no witnesses here today.
Now, I have been blamed, to put it mildly, both here and in the media for ending these meetings. This is simply not true. Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 20, page 829, makes it clear that when a chair of a committee is not available, a vice-chair--which would be you, Mr. Murphy--is fully authorized to take his or her place and conduct the committee's business. When I left the room, the meeting did not end. Either of the vice-chairs who were in the room were free to preside over the vote and were certainly free to preside over the hearing of the witnesses on Bill C-27.
But that is not what occurred. Instead of taking the vote or continuing our Bill C-27 study, the vice-chair simply adjourned the meeting, leaving the witnesses high and dry. I can only assume--