Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would first like to congratulate Mr. van Koevrden again on the quality of his French. Every time he has the opportunity to thank someone in French, he does it. He did it in the House of Commons last week and he did it here in this parliamentary committee, so I wanted to recognize him, and I applaud the efforts he makes for both our official languages. Here end the congratulations and acknowledgements.
I admit that I am a bit puzzled and surprised. Parliamentary committees deciding to send letters to ministers is to be expected. Mr. Chair, you have a lot more experience than I have, but I have nonetheless been here for nine years and I think this would be the first time a parliamentary committee sent a letter to some ministers about a problem before its report is released. It must be acknowledged that the law is meant to admit precedents, but in this case I think it is a very weighty precedent. I will explain.
What we are talking about right now is not a minor point. It is a very important subject that we have been talking about for months. No one here will doubt Ms. Pauzé's intention, or the intention of all the members here, to address this matter seriously and with a desire to move forward. The committee has not just met on a whim, for the fun of it. Ms. Pauzé and others had been talking about this for months. As well, the committee has been meeting since May. So there have been numerous meetings—nine, to be precise. Since we always go a bit over the allotted time, we are talking about some 20 hours of testimony. We have had 61 people testify before the committee. This is not a minor study.
It would also be wrong to argue or think that everyone is leaning in the same direction, like the tower of Pisa. I say that because we have had balanced testimony. Some witnesses were in favour of this approach, others were against it. Some stated objections, others pointed to positive elements; some were in favour of this approach but had a reservation that I won't say was neutral, but a caution, that we should not always look at things from the same perspective, and should rather come at them from different angles. This is what we call democracy and the work of Parliament. This is why we are here.
I know that Ms. Pauzé's heart is in the right place. She is not a person who gets involved in political wheeling and dealing; very much the opposite. However, I find that her letter illustrates her own vision, which some people share. We could see this during the recent testimony by people from the department. That is fine, and I have nothing against it. It is called democracy. However, to go from that to sending ministers a letter from the committee, a letter that assumes the content of the report to be released in February, February 12, if I recall correctly—I think that is a bit ambitious, to put it politely.
Ms. Pauzé, you know me pretty well. I am not the type to want to insult people for the fun of it. This is certainly not an insult; I just want to voice a caution. If this were a problem that had just fallen from the sky, on which we had to act fast, I could understand. However, this study is of considerable consequence. It is serious. That is why we have done it seriously, over nine meetings, and heard 61 witnesses.
Mr. Chair, we have done our homework correctly. We had almost 20 hours' worth of witnesses.
I am not against the letter, but I don't think that, in this specific case, it's our job to send a letter to the minister addressing what we have done as a committee. If some members here feel comfortable with this, fine. However, from my personal perspective, not all 61 witnesses agree with this. Some people have other opinions. This is what democracy is all about. This is what parliamentary committees are all about. This is why we have these witnesses and meetings.
I think it's a bit too early to conclude what will be in the report tabled in February. If some members here around the table feel comfortable with this and some other issues, go ahead. Everybody is free to send a letter to a minister. It's not because we are parliamentarians that we have to be sure of this. To the Canadian citizens watching us today, if you want to write to a minister, go ahead. However, as a committee, I think we have to be more careful with that.
This is why we are not comfortable with the issue and will not vote in favour of it. If all of the members here want to sign it, go ahead. However, sign it as a member of Parliament, not as a committee member.
Thank you so much.