Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I want to start out by saying that this is a very unusual turn of events in the time that I've had the privilege to be a member of Parliament. I think it should be of concern not only to parliamentarians of all political stripes but also to the public, some of whom may be listening to the proceedings today, since this is a public meeting.
Mr. Chair, the situation we have just seen unfold is that by dint of a majority, the question period that you were overseeing as chair was summarily ended. Mr. Chair, so that we clearly understand what we've just done here, I would submit that if that's the case--if we're going to break new ground here and start to do that--then when we call a witness before any standing committee, the majority of that committee can, with a motion, just decide with a vote that the question time is over. It doesn't matter whether there are more people on the list or not, because as you correctly pointed out to the committee, there were members present who had their names on the list of speakers and were prepared to speak. When you recognized Monsieur Plamondon, he put a motion that summarily cut off any further discussion. I say this so that we can very clearly understand what happened.
Mr. Chair, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that what we've just moved into is basically an organized dictatorship. The reality is, Mr. Chair, that if we call a witness, the majority--in this case, all of the opposition together--can decide, for whatever reason, that they want to cut off any further discussion. It doesn't matter how long the list is that the clerk has written for you, the list of members who want to talk on that particular issue. It could be the first round of questioning, and all of a sudden the majority of the committee decides they've heard enough. It doesn't matter; they've just had enough of this particular discussion.
The thing that particularly offends me is that there are individuals sitting around this table who are always quick to say they want to defend the minorities. They want to stand up, beat their chests, and say they're the party, the individuals, the members of Parliament who want to look after the minorities. In this particular case, Mr. Chair, they just decide that they've heard enough at this committee, and they're a majority; therefore, it's going to be the will of the majority to cut off any further discussion. That's what took place here; let's be very clear about that. You correctly pointed out to Mr. Plamondon that there were still people on the list, yet when it came his turn, he presented a motion that basically cut off any further discussion.
As I said, I know that when I was in opposition, we used to rant and rail against majority governments at different times down through history, whether it was a majority Conservative government or, more recently, the back-to-back majority Liberal governments. Whether it was at committee or in the House, we used to often call the government to account because they were behaving, in our view, like a dictatorship. It was just the will of the majority--a show of hands, in a sense--and there was no recognition that perhaps procedure and due process were going to be run over roughshod.
Back in those days the minority, in those cases, was collectively the opposition members. The opposition parties didn't have sufficient votes, whether it was at committee or in the chamber in the House of Commons, to thwart the efforts of the government of the day. In that case it was the Liberals; before my time, opposition parties used to accuse the Progressive Conservatives of something similar.
Yet that's exactly what we've witnessed here today. Despite the fact that people were ready, willing, and able to put forward their points of view, the opposition collectively decided, that's enough, we've decided; we've made the decision that we've heard enough and we're going to cut it off.
If that's the type of precedent that we're going to set, whether it's the individual parties coming together to collectively determine the fate of a chairman or whether it's to cut off any further debate on an issue, as they have done in this committee, I would have to pose the question, Mr. Chairman, where does that leave this Parliament?
I see that we're very rapidly moving into the realm where the opposition collectively, the three opposition parties, have decided that they're going to be the government, that they are going to make all the decisions. They're going to decide who gets to be the chair of the committees. They're going to decide indeed when they've heard enough, when discussion should be cut off.
My concern with this, Mr. Chairman, is obvious. The citizenry, yes, elected a minority government, but they did elect.... And I know how much that sticks in the craw of Liberal members, who actually believe this commonly held view that the Liberal Party of Canada is somehow the natural governing party and it's an anomaly if they're ever thrown out of office. They take very personally that something has gone awry and they're no longer government.
But the reality is that the people elected a Conservative minority government, not a coalition government of the three opposition parties. That's not the decision they made in January 2006. Yet what we're seeing today is the opposition parties collectively, as I said, attempting to decide who gets to talk, when they get to talk, how long they get to talk, and they're going to move a motion, which was allowed to stand, that cut off any further discussion.
I don't think it's that difficult to project and say, where is this going to lead? I would suggest, through you, Mr. Chair, that what we're going to see very rapidly is this: if this approach to a minority government, a minority Parliament trying to work together, is allowed to stand, very quickly we're going to really dissolve into a completely dysfunctional place. If it's going to be the tyranny of the majority that dictates when discussions are cut off, then I really have to question whether that's in the best interests of the Canadian public--that simply like that, they're going to decide, on this particular day in committee, to move a motion, have a vote, and say now we've heard enough.
I have a problem with that. It certainly goes, if not against the existing procedures and the Standing Orders, against the intent of the rules of this place and what, in my time, I've come to try to respect, which is that people do get the opportunity to continue to debate, to talk and to put forward their individual points of view.