Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, I was dealing with an important aspect of what Mr. Cannan is proposing: let us look at all of the history and let us examine the workings of Parliament. This is the 39th Parliament, and the present government has made promises, guaranteeing that the work of committees would be treated with much greater respect. The new government has promised changes to the way committees function.
Mr. Chairman, I have already told you several times that I find that your way of managing the committee has greatly improved over the last few months. You respect all members and give everyone an opportunity to participate and have his or her say.
However, we have before us Mr. Cannan's motion, aimed at denying this respect due to committee members. There is no need for that, because the government already has tools it can use in any situation. It has already used some to close off debate on the bill in the House. It has already shown its ability to hit hard on committees.
It would be inconceivable for us, as committee members, to accept that the government decide what we can say and seek to limit our debate. That is inconceivable for anyone who has fought for democracy. If we look at emerging democracies, such as South Africa, for example, we can see that Parliament has had to determine to what extent opposition members should be able to speak out and represent their riding.
In South Africa, Parliament has changed the way committees work because, previously, when the regime was much less democratic, committees had no real power. They did not have the power to draft bills.
We have but to look at was is going on in Taiwan. I was thrilled to go there last summer and to see the approach they have with regard to the legislature and the rights of the opposition.
In none of these countries do government members attempt to quash opposition members or limit their opportunity to speak. If we refer to Marleau and Montpetit, it is clear that they do not have the right to do that. They do not have the right to impose rules limiting the ability of members to intervene and they cannot decide that nothing goes, under the pretext that it is the government that is in charge.
Mr. Cannan does perhaps not respect what I am saying, and perhaps he is convinced that he need not listen to me, but I find this important, and I am not alone.
I would be very pleased to hear Mr. Cannan's comments on these issues.