Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My intent is not to offend anyone unnecessarily, but the least I can say is that the motion contains basically the same elements that the committee rejected, that the chair rejected. I will choose my words carefully. I believe I was right and that my comments were justified.
Mr. Chair, it's unfortunate that the committee has succumbed to this temptation, because we are moving away from consensus. My fellow member Mr. Barrett regularly brings up the importance of seeking consensus, working in a manner that has unanimous support and not wasting time. I completely agree with him. We must never waste the committee's time.
It is equally important to abide by established principles. When the committee voted against going down this road once, a second attempt to do the same thing was made. It, too, was voted down. It defies logic to keep at this and to allow a third attempt. This is truly unfortunate, because it is preventing the committee from addressing issues that have unanimous support. On top of that, this is setting a precedent that makes no sense.
I find myself in the frustrating position of prevailing upon my fellow members to be reasonable and not to persist in what is unreasonable. It is essential that we work together. I must stress that.
Mr. Chair, although I do not have as much experience as you and the NDP member, I think that everyone at this table wants to make sure the decisions we make strengthen the good procedure of the House of Commons. I am certain, however, that the motion as it currently stands puts us on the wrong path.
I am using this opportunity to voice my concerns to you and to all Canadians. I hope I can rely on good old Canadian common sense to set us on the right path, by which I mean getting down to work and tackling issues that reflect a consensus, instead of spinning our wheels.
I had high hopes when I was assigned to this committee. I can remember the fruitful discussions we had, in the beginning, when Ms. Harder was chair.
In February, we talked about studies that were very important to the committee. Motions were defeated. My fellow members who were dissatisfied with the motions spoke for two or three meetings until the committee finally decided to put the motion to a vote. It was defeated.
I clearly recall Mr. Barrett's displeasure, and that was okay. He exercised his right to tell the committee members that he felt they had gone down the wrong road. I didn't agree with him, like most of the members. Nevertheless, he had the right to continue voicing his views. I would have never dared to say that he did not have that right, because I respect parliamentary tradition.
I am appealing to you and to all the members. We can spend weeks, even months, trying to convince one another of why we are right or we can recognize that this will not work because there is no consensus on the issue. A consensus is not a majority.
Mr. Chair, I don't want to put you in the awkward position of conducting a vote that would determine the committee's work. You do not interfere in debate. You make decisions to ensure the proper conduct of the discussion. You do a fine job, even when I disagree with your reasoning. I have the utmost respect for you and I consider you a good friend. We disagree from time to time, but in no way does that diminish the regard I have for you. I hope you feel the same.
We have a golden opportunity here. I have no doubt that there is consensus on certain parts of Mr. Angus's initial motion, if not unanimous support.
Why not focus our efforts on the parts everyone agrees on?
Mr. Chair, through you, I have a question for my fellow parliamentarians at this virtual table. Why not focus our efforts on areas where there is broad consensus, if not unanimous support?
If we did that, Mr. Chair, we could adopt a motion immediately. We could get down to work and examine other issues Canadians care deeply about as well.
I have repeatedly brought up the importance of facial recognition based on artificial intelligence or similar software.
As I have explained numerous times, Mr. Chair, this is an extremely important issue, mainly because of the flaws in these types of programs. I would wager $100 that everyone sitting at this virtual table is supportive of that study; after all, everyone knows how unfair it is that these programs cannot identify non-whites properly. It's not just a small percentage, either.