Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We added this day.
There have been some discussions among members of the committee. I want to give Ms. Mourani credit, because I think she came up with something a day or two ago that certainly some members of the parties have talked with each other about, and the proposer of the bill has been consulted. With that, I do believe she had what should have been considered a workable solution for the committee. Failing that, Mr. Holland's attempt to decide which witnesses and what days we'd sit certainly isn't workable for us.
I think the discussions that Ms. Mourani and I had were certainly adult in nature, and I appreciate that. She had indicated that each member of the committee could have three witnesses allocated to them. We were prepared to accept that on this side, excluding the chair, so that the other side would have had 18 witnesses that they could name. This side would have had 15 witnesses.
If my Liberal friends had accepted what she suggested, I think that's very democratic and it's parliamentary. It is part of the agreement that the whips from all parties had agreed to, that witnesses would be fairly balanced with respect to the numbers in the House, and so on. That would have reflected that the Liberals, the Bloc, and the NDP, as a group, would have had three more witnesses than this side had.
I fail to understand why Mr. Holland's approach is that he would name the witnesses; he would decide who should be called. I think it has become more evident that as time goes on we're certainly hearing from people across the country who feel that their voices should be heard. I'm not suggesting these people are all supporters of Bill C-391, but they're certainly people who believe in the democratic process. I know we had a list of people from the province of Quebec, as a matter of fact, who very recently came forward feeling that they should be heard. We understand that it's not possible that everyone who wishes to speak would get that opportunity, but certainly there should have been representation.
Going back to the original motion that's on the floor, it's purely unworkable. It's not something we would accept. If Mr. Holland wished to have his motion rescinded and we dealt with what Ms. Mourani had, I don't think there is any doubt that we could have moved along on this. But certainly to have taken over the meeting a couple of days ago and have listed the witnesses that purely Mr. Holland thought should be called....
We're hearing from police officers and individuals across the country. As you know, the chief in Calgary has come out very strongly in support of Bill C-391. The president of the Saskatchewan police association has come out in support of the bill as well.
It is a bill that's important. We've said from the very beginning that we understand there are people who are opposed to it. We recognize that. But if we don't hear both sides of it, I don't know how anybody could make up their mind.
As a matter of fact, I have a copy of a message that was an e-mail that I believe was sent to the leader of the Liberal Party. That individual indicated that he was very upset that his views were not going to be taken into account. I can read you what he says. This was to the leader of the Liberal Party.
As a Canadian, you have the right to your own personal opinion. However, as the leader of a national political party, you should be bound to uphold the basic tenets of democracy, which include permitting all other Canadians the same right of personal belief and the democratic ideal of majority rule. You should defend, rather than deny, the right of your members as representatives of their constituents to vote for the opinion of the majority in their respective constituencies. Forcing your members to vote for the party line is something we, as Canadians, would expect from countries like North Korea or China, but which does not belong in our “democracy” and which should not be condoned by us.
Considering that a vast majority of the Canadian populace does not support the gun registry and believe it to be wasteful, ineffective, and prejudicial, you would be far more wisely served to stand for the majority and not the elitist misinformed minority, or at least permit your caucus members to do so. Be a Canadian first and a Liberal after that and stand for the right. I will sign myself as a very disenchanted former lifelong Liberal.
These are the kinds of things we're getting. I would expect that the other side are getting something similar: they may be getting letters from Conservative supporters who are suggesting that we have the wrong side. That's fair. But to do what Mr. Holland's motion would have us do is certainly not in the best interests of Canadians or part of a fair and impartial hearing.
This whole idea of having this extra meeting today has been somewhat hijacked again. The understanding we thought we had when we left the meeting yesterday was that we could sit down as adults and parliamentarians and come to an agreement, which I believe existed among all three opposition parties and certainly on our side, that we would each have three members, or each member of opposite sides here, so that this side would get that 15 and their side would get 18.
Then we have these shenanigans coming up again today. As I said, I'd really like to give credit to Ms. Mourani. I think she had the right approach. But to continue on with the original motion that was on the floor by Mr. Holland is certainly not in the best interests of Canadians. I would hope that the other side would see that and vote against that motion when the opportunity comes to them.
