So in the rules of procedural fairness, there are two sides to every story, and I am prepared to have the debate. I want to hear why Chief Blair and members from the police boards and Association pour la santé publique du Québec, where a tragic incident occurred maybe 20 years ago.... I think they have relevant commentary, relevant evidence.
But similarly, and in some sense of procedural fairness, members of this House, who were elected in democratic elections, as was I, must understand that there are two sides to every issue. I don't understand, and I want some....
I'm going to wrap up my comments for now, but I want to know what the members opposite have to fear. Why are they so scared of what the government's witnesses might say that they feel compelled to put together a list of 33 names, only two of which were submitted by the government, and apparently use their mathematical majority on this committee? I'll call it a tyranny of the minority to support this motion and dictate the agenda over four days without any significant contribution from members of the public, chiefs of police, or members of the Auditor General's office who have done forensic audits of how much money was wasted on the long-gun registry. I want to know what they have to fear.
Similar to Ms. Glover, I have been inundated with people who want to appear before this committee. I believe I had over 2,000 e-mails from members of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation alone, who requested that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation be allowed to come and speak to this issue. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, for those members who aren't familiar with it, because I don't see it on the list, so maybe Mr. Holland doesn't know what they do or what their mandate is...their mandate is to assure good value for taxpayers' money.
Certainly as a member of this House, when I hear from 2,000 members of the public on any issue--I'm not saying they were all my constituents, and I know many of them were not--my ears are alive to that issue. I certainly would like to hear from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. I would like to hear from members of the Calgary police department, some of whom have stated that the resources used in the gun registry could possibly or probably be better deployed with more effective results in the fight against crime.
Obviously if you have been listening, you will know I am vehemently against this motion. I am shocked that the members of this committee have so little regard for democracy that they simply want to hijack the agenda and dictate the witness list. And they know full well that there is public interest in this issue, so much so that the leader of the opposition decided he has to win this bill so badly that apparently he is going to order eight members of his caucus, who represent non-suburban and non-metropolitan areas, to vote against C-391, even though those members know it is in their constituents' best interest, and I would submit likely in those members' own political interests, to support Ms. Hoeppner's bill.
But there is so much attention to this bill based on the events this week that the leader of the opposition has decided to crack the whip. So before members vote on this bill, I would ask to them to consider what is at stake here, because I would submit, Mr. Chair, that it is not just C-391. This really goes to the very fundamentals of how our parliamentary institutions operate.
We have the member from Etobicoke--Lakeshore who cracks the whip to force eight members of his rural caucus to vote against their better conscience, to vote against their better judgment, to vote against, I suspect, the expressed will of their constituents, because we know that Ms. Hoeppner's bill is very popular in rural Canada and elsewhere, but especially in rural Canada.
It's historical practice in this House that private members' bills are free votes. We saw a free vote yesterday on an equally controversial bill, the right to die with dignity bill, or what's commonly referred to as “the euthanasia bill”, sponsored by Ms. Lalonde from the Bloc Québécois. Clearly, it was a non-whipped vote. Certainly most members of my party voted against the bill, but notably, I think the Minister of Foreign Affairs voted in favour of it. Similarly, the members of the opposition were divided on the whole issue of euthanasia and the right to die with dignity, and different members voted their conscience, which is the tradition of this House when it comes to private members' bills.
However, we see that tradition abrogated and abridged with respect to Bill C-391, where Mr. Ignatieff, the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, has apparently seen fit that defeating Bill C-391 is more important to him than preserving the democratic tradition of the House that private members ought to be able to vote according to their constituents' wishes or their own conscience when it comes to matters of private members' business, as opposed to government business.
We see the same thing with the chicanery going on before this committee today, where any sense of fairness, any sense of fair play, any sense of a balanced debate is thrown out the window, as we have a list of 33 witnesses, 31 of whom are drawn from names that Mr. Holland, or Ms. Mourani, or Mr. Davies, or his replacement, have submitted. It's somehow supposed to be a fair debate for this committee to hear from 33 witnesses, 31 of whom are going to say that Bill C-391 is a bad bill. Is that really what democracy is all about? Is that really what our constituents send us here to do, to hear a debate that is so blatantly biased on one side as opposed to the other?
So I call upon members to consider what is at stake in addition to Bill C-391, and that is the parliamentary tradition that committees ought to examine bills. By any definition, the examination of a bill requires a balanced debate, and a balanced debate requires witnesses pro and con. I don't want to pre-judge the witnesses, but what I anticipate seeing here is that 31 out of 33 witnesses are going to be opposed to Bill C-391 and the other two are going to maintain, as I do, that it's a great bill and ought to go to third reading and the Senate.
So that's the principle that's being challenged, the principle of fair play, the principle that committees are supposed to study a bill. You cannot study a bill when one side dictates the witness list.
I encourage all honourable members to vote no to Mr. Holland's motion.