Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say how much I appreciate the points that Mr. Blaikie made. I agree with him.
It's not something that often happens, that the Conservatives and NDP are in agreeance on something. I mean, I like Mr. Blaikie as a person. I enjoy his sense of humour. I don't know if he drinks, but if he did, he's the kind of guy I think I could go for a beer with. I think we'd have an enjoyable time. We might argue a little bit about politics, but that's my whole point. We have a very different political world view, I think, generally, but on something like this, we understand the importance of making sure that this is done fairly and in a way that all parties can agree.
When he makes the point about filibusters, or the type of meeting that we're having here, I think it's an important one. It's a very valid one. I've been here eight and a half years or so. I've been witness to or part of a few filibusters—not a lot, but a few—and I've been on both sides. I've been on the side where I've wondered why the person couldn't just be quiet and we could get this taken care of. I've also been on the side of understanding why...well, I've always understood why they were important, but on the side where I believed it's needed in that case.
But when I think about it, every time I've seen one, they have always been issues of high importance, and issues where generally there might be some significant disagreements amongst the parties on what should happen. At the end of the day, it has to be done in what's in the best interest of Canadians.
I think one of the key things that happens when you have one of these long meetings like this, which is one of the things the government is trying to take the opportunity away, you enable engagement by Canadians, because Canadians become aware of the media reports on it. MPs can go and have conversations with their constituents. The constituents can approach MPs. It gives people on all sides of the issue a chance to get more perspectives from Canadians.
That is the really key part of it, that you get that chance for Canadians to get engaged in an issue, which otherwise—if a government forces something through quickly—they don't get that opportunity to do. Once it happens, it's too late. This gives a chance for everyone to give a second thought to the issue and for Canadians to actually bring their perspectives to their members of Parliament, which is really what our job is supposed to be. At the end of the day, maybe the government, even though the opposition parties feel differently, has the consensus of Canadians that this is the right thing to do on whatever issue it might be. Maybe they don't. Maybe they then rethink what they're doing. I think this is a great example of that.
We've seen tens of thousands of Canadians signing petitions. I know that I personally as a member of the committee have received thousands of emails. I'm sure government members would be able to say the same, because I've seen that their names are copied on some of the same ones I'm getting. That tells me that Canadians are engaged. They're interested. Basically what I'm seeing is they're saying, no, this isn't right. This is an opportunity for Canadians to have that say, and they wouldn't have gotten it otherwise.
The one thing we can all agree on here on this side of the table and this side of the House is that this is an important thing. I think in their heart of hearts, most members, if not all members, of the Liberal government would feel the same if they were to examine their heart of hearts. I hope that at some point we can come to some kind of resolution where we can understand that and figure out a way that we can move forward.
I think everybody is willing to look at these issues. We have some disagreements, certainly, on where they might go, but I think there are some things where we do have agreement, too. That's really been my experience in this committee. I've been here three or four years now in this committee, and that's been my experience. We've always been able to do that. We sometimes start from a greater disagreement than we end with, but if you can't even agree to really enable the other side to even have any real say....
We keep hearing about a conversation. We keep hearing that we'll listen. But to listen and have a conversation and then just completely ignore everything you've heard is not really a conversation at all.
That's really what it comes down to, Mr. Chair. It's the opportunity to just dig into the issues and know that you're going to actually have some say and be heard. That's the point that Mr. Blaikie was making. I certainly agree with him, and I just wanted to add my voice to that.