Thank you, Chair.
I would like to ask some questions and make some comments about clause 2, as well as to make some comments about the debate we're having on the clause-by-clause of this bill.
I want to encourage members by saying that respect for other members and other parties remains important, even in the context of a majority situation. In previous sessions of this committee, we haven't always agreed, but I think we've been able to work together fairly effectively. We've been productive over the last year.
I'm a bit disappointed by how this meeting is proceeding so far. I don't think it's in accordance with the rules. I think the government could have gotten where it wanted to anyway, but it still hasn't proceeded in accordance with the rules.
Just to go back in terms of the context, the committee had agreed to a study of four meetings on Bill C-20. That is four meetings, eight hours of hearings, to hear from different witnesses, which arguably is not that long in the context of a bill that seeks to create a fourth housing agency and that is quite long in terms of its text. We spent about the same amount of time on a private member's bill that was certainly important but much shorter.
We were quite reasonable in terms of the number of meetings we agreed to. We have not completed the number of meetings that was previously agreed to. Formally, in a sense, we had four meeting starts that were on the subject, but because of a decision of government members to filibuster, we did not have a chance to complete the fourth hearing.
In spite of the previous agreement's not being honoured, in spite of not having a meeting notice indicating that there was clause-by-clause, the government has used its majority to try to proceed directly, and it has proceeded directly to this item. This is not how committees are supposed to operate. It's certainly not a collaborative way to get this work done.
There are a lot of important discussions to have about housing. We had also agreed to have a further study on housing to commence following the clause-by-clause on this bill. Our message is that the government has to respect agreements and commitments that were made in the context of this committee. Thinking that you can just blow over that and push these things forward ignores the realities of how committees work and what is necessary for them to be productive.
As the official opposition, we're committed to continuing to do our job in asserting that principle as being important for the work of this committee.
I also want to say, Mr. Chair, that the chair is entitled to make rulings, and I may disagree with those rulings. Those rulings can be challenged. It's not difficult for someone to observe what the likely vote would be on a challenge to the chair anyway in the context of this committee, but it is established procedurally that you can raise points of order if you think the rules aren't being followed and that you can challenge decisions of the chair. For the chair to say we can't challenge them defies logic and normal process.
I'm disappointed that we're here because, formally, this particular committee meeting started two meetings ago. At that time, we heard from experts who were testifying before the committee regarding housing. At that meeting, our colleague from the Bloc put forward a motion that we supported, which was about seeking documents from the government related to accountability on another study. It was a motion that was on notice. We didn't put forward that motion, but we very much supported the pursuit of accountability from the government.
The government did not want to hand over those documents, so they proceeded to filibuster over the course of three meetings. In that context, ironically, the government House leader is making arguments that committees would be more productive if the Liberals get their way when they actively filibuster—not just at this committee but also at multiple committees—regarding requests for documents. These requests for documents are important for committees' being able to do their work. Part of what motivated that Liberal filibuster was their feeling that a majority was coming, under which conditions they would never have to hand over documents they don't want to hand over.
Their goal in stacking the deck at these committees is not more collaboration. We were collaborating effectively before, and we were getting things done. The conditions of a minority Parliament forced collaboration. It forced that on all of us. Nobody could get their way exactly. Now the government seems to think they don't have to collaborate with others and don't have to work with them. Most importantly, the outcomes for Canadians will be worse because, when all members of Parliament are working together.... While that collaboration can happen in the context of a majority, I hope we might consider going back to it.
We're here debating the clause-by-clause now because—instead of making counter-proposals and amendments, or trying to work out a compromise on the request for information regarding Cúram software—the government dug in their heels, filibustered over the course of three meetings and has now, promptly, used their majority to shut down those requests for accountability. Canadians will be worse off because they won't have access to information about this software. Our deliberations on Bill C-20 have also been undermined by the government's decision to filibuster in a way that blocked the testimony of witnesses. We've ended up in a situation in which we're already seeing the government ignoring normal conventions and rules to try to drive over the concerns of the opposition.
This is the context that brings us here in terms of the clause-by-clause, and—