Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm somewhat on the horns of a dilemma because, quite frankly, I enjoy and appreciate listening to Ms. Murray's interventions. Whether or not I agree with them, I think she expresses herself clearly, and actually, I find that she and I at least speak the same language.
The problem is that when Ms. Murray says things that I believe are not accurate or are not well placed, I have an option. I can just sit here and take it silently, or I can speak up and try to make the point that she may not be perceiving things at least the way I do, if not, perhaps, correctly. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, I think it's my duty as a legislator and a conscientious member of Parliament to speak up and see if we can have a dialogue. And who knows? Maybe we can try to achieve some understanding, if not today, then over time.
Just to begin with, to give you an elementary example, I know that it was not deliberate of Ms. Murray to do this, but in point of fact, when speaking to the amendment that is before us, she spent most of her time talking about the main motion before--I think--she finally said that she would support the amendment and that it might be appropriate to do this on a per-member basis rather than a per-party basis. Now, that point she could have made in 60 seconds. The rest was good to hear, but it really didn't have to do with the amendment. It had to do with the main motion.
Now, we all do that, and it's very difficult to discipline ourselves not to mix things up in that way. I'm not trying to be too critical, but I'm saying that this is an example of why we need a little bit of leeway in our discussions.
Regarding Ms. Murray's suggestion that it's somehow inappropriate to talk about a motion limiting debate to five minutes per party as being undemocratic, I'd like to quote from former Speaker Fraser. These are comments he made on April 14, 1987, and I think this quote is germane. I'm honestly not trying to elongate things. He said:
It is essential to our democratic system that controversial issues should be debated at reasonable length so that every reasonable opportunity shall be available to hear the arguments pro and con and that reasonable delaying tactics should be permissible to enable opponents of a measure to enlist public support for their point of view.
So we might disagree about how long it takes to make reasonable points, but I don't think I would disagree with Speaker Fraser that it's a democratic thing to give people reasonable time. Conversely, if we think that five minutes per party is not reasonable time, I don't think it's wrong or inappropriate to say that it is an undemocratic measure.
With respect to Ms. Murray's comments that the Conservatives have raised a plethora of procedural tactics, quite frankly, you know, if Ms. Murray wanted to say that the Conservatives have taken too long to explain their point of view, that would be a legitimate thing to say, but I can't think of a single procedural tactic that the Conservatives have raised. We had a motion at the outset to set aside the debate on this whole bill, and that seems like an appropriate time to make such a motion. And then along the way, Mr. Calkins moved a motion that we should hear from more witnesses, but I don't think one can say that these are procedural tactics.
What I would describe as procedural tactics are the continued points of order that have come not just from the NDP member but from other parties as well. I would include the heckling that has gone on from across the table here as a procedural tactic to shut down debate. I would include the procedural tactic of adjourning debate. I have been here two years. I've never seen that done, and I'm sure that the opposition must have a handbook out there on procedural tactics to shut down debate.
So my point of view is completely different from that of Ms. Murray. I think it has been the opposition, not the Conservatives members, who have been adopting tactics.
By the way, when I say that, I realize that I'm guilty of a misstatement, and it's one that I often dislike when it's applied to me. I shouldn't really say “the opposition”. I should say “some members of”. Even if Ms. Murray wanted to say that some members of the Conservative Party have done this or that, that to me would be a more respectful way of putting it than to put everybody together in the same basket, because we are all here as individuals, and some of us, me included, I hope, are genuinely trying to have a debate.
Along the same lines, on Ms. Murray's comments about disrespect, if there is disrespect shown at this table, it certainly is not limited to the Conservative Party. There is plenty of that going around. I have to tell you that from my perspective on this side of the table, it is mainly coming from opposite me, but not from every member opposite me.
I just wanted to make those points in response to what Ms. Murray had to say.
Thank you.