Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to emphasize that I'm not opposed to the motion to adjourn now because there are few people left on the speakers list, and most of the members have spoken. When Mr. Blaikie's motion was first introduced, I thought I would have preferred that we put our questions to the witnesses rather than debate it. However, since everyone is speaking, I would consider it unfair to interrupt debate without resolving the matter. Furthermore, that motion would have enabled us to discuss the frustration in this committee.
First I want to say, from the bottom of my heart, that I have the greatest respect for every one of the members of this committee, by which I mean the chair and all the members of every party.
I have profound respect for you. You do a remarkable job. Together we can have true, constructive discussions where that's possible. Consequently, there's nothing in what I'm going to say that is aimed at any member personally. I bear no grudge against anyone. I very much appreciate the committee, even though there are moments when we quarrel, as we have recently seen.
That brings me to the topic of the filibuster. I understand Mr. Blaikie, and I understand Ms. Chatel and my Liberal colleagues and why they are so frustrated with these many hours of filibustering, during which we could have studied this mammoth 500- or 600-page bill and really improved it. Instead, we heard talk about baby eels on numerous occasions. I was frustrated with that too.
It is frustrating, but I want to remind my colleagues that the filibuster is a tool that, as far as I know, is used in all the parliaments of democratic countries. That tool may come in different forms, but it's used and there's a reason for that.
I understand that it's frustrating. The purpose of dilatory measures and filibustering is to annoy others. It's to tell the government and the other parties that, if we aren't respected, we'll wreck the machine. That's its purpose. So it's normal for it to be unpleasant and cause this much frustration.
I don't know a lot about the history of the Parliament of Canada or the parliaments of other anglophone countries, but, to my knowledge, all the parties engage in filibustering when they're in opposition. The Liberals did it from 2011 and 2015, and even the NDP too. Mr. Julian often boasts about it. It was very unpleasant for the government of the time. The Liberals are also capable of doing it when they're in opposition.
I'm frustrated when I experience filibustering, I don't like it, and I feel we could be doing something else. Despite that fact, I respect the filibuster because I believe that's the way to challenge and slow down parliamentary business; It's the way to annoy the government and others. If it weren't possible to do it that way, I wonder how it would be done. Would we come to blows? What would happen then? So it's the way to express one's opposition in a defined and standardized manner.
During the filibuster a moment ago, when I was really angry, a member who had come to replace another member took out his telephone and played the parliamentary television feed into the microphone. I thought that showed a disregard for the rules established to protect the interpreters, who can suffer hearing injuries. That made me very angry. As for everything else, I think that filibustering, in all parliaments and by all opposition parties, is a tool that will be used.
There are always two sides to the same coin. The Conservatives said they wanted to have the minister for two hours. Was that justified or not? Personally, when she came to visit us, I wasn't satisfied with her answers, and I didn't feel she had a very good grasp of her enormous bill. I was disappointed. Personally, I would've filibustered for half an hour, more or less. However, I nevertheless congratulate Daniel for getting that additional time.
I don't think every member or every party should tell other members and parties what to do or how to conduct themselves. That's the meaning of democracy. We're accountable to our fellow citizens. If people in Joliette tell me that I filibustered too much and then vote me out in the next election, that'll be the effect of democracy. My work is to represent those people.
What do I, someone from Joliette, have in common with the member from Calgary? We have common points, but we represent very different realities. We will often vote against each other on many bills, but I have great respect for him because I know he represents his people and that he's voting accordingly. When he filibusters, I know that he's being accountable to his people, not to his committee colleagues.
So that's what I had to say about the filibuster. It's frustrating, and that's it's purpose. All parties use it when they're in opposition. If we manage to find a way to work together, so much the better. Otherwise there are the standing orders of the House of Commons.
So that brings me to the standing orders of the House of Commons. As far as I know, it is customary for the official opposition party to decide who will be the first vice-chair. If the members of the other parties now want to tell that party how to make its choice, that will set a dangerous precedent that I would prefer to prevent. I understand that, given the frustration it may arise, people might think that it would encourage debate and that it might be positive. If the clerk told us that this had never been done and that no such decision had ever been made, that would set a precedent. However, precedents trouble me greatly.
For example, currently in the House, we are debating a motion to amend the standing orders on which there is no consensus. It would result in profound changes to the rules of the House of Commons, and this is one of the first times when it will not be done on a consensual basis. That really troubles me because I think that, when a future government wants to make new changes, it will be able to do so.
The next time, when another party is in the majority on the committee and wants to gag the opposition, I'm afraid it will want to change vice-chairs, among other things. So I fear these precedents, and I wouldn't really want the rules changed in that regard here.
I have two final points to make. I'll try to be brief.
As I said, we're in the process of changing the rules in the House of Commons in a non-consensual way. This is a dangerous precedent. If this motion were adopted, it would be a first, as the clerk has said. It would also set a precedent that very much troubles me. I understand that we can have a substantive discussion on how to operate here, but I wouldn't want us to set a precedent.
I also want to mention that Mr. Fonseca is doing a superb job. He is never replaced; he is always here. I haven't yet chaired the committee one single time. He once called to tell me to be ready to do so, if ever a problem arose when Mr. Singh Hallan replaced him. He had planned everything. Mr. Singh Hallan did a remarkable job on the occasion when he chaired a meeting. I understand that it's fair game to play political games and say that he's less present than he should be, and so on. However, it's important that the Conservatives, who constitute the official opposition, continue to appoint the person who occupies the vice-chair.
I will conclude with an extremely uncomfortable point. Mr. Blaikie, for whom I have the greatest respect, recalled who the vice-chairs are.
I look at us all around the table here, and I see only one racialized person. However, that's the person who is concerned here. That makes me very uncomfortable.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
