Yes, I think I have. Thank you very much.
As I said, I think what would be productive is if we could take a step back. I want us to be able to look at this bill with honesty and integrity. I think we know there are both sides of the issue. There are some people on every side who are very, very passionate about this.
I think one of the problems, even in the discussions about the long-gun registry--and I would say on our side, too--is that it gets so political. Instead of actually talking about the facts on both sides, it gets political.
I think this committee was an opportunity for us to listen to others, not just ourselves. We're politicians. We have something we want to promote. We have something we want to do. This was an opportunity to hear from average Canadians.
I submitted a list of 57 witnesses who I thought would be productive. I certainly didn't expect to get 57--not at all. I think there are three names you've taken from my list, and one of them is actually a duplicate; you folks put it on your list as well. The only group that is represented is sports shooters, and one lady who is a farmer.
Basically what you're saying with respect to this list is that you don't want to hear from police officers. You've been saying you want to hear from police officers, but when you look at the list you've proposed you're saying to police officers who don't agree with you that you don't want to hear from them. You're saying you don't want to hear from women's groups that don't agree with you.
Liberals don't want to hear from aboriginal groups that don't agree with them. Liberals are saying to politicians from outside the federal jurisdiction, to provincial politicians, that you don't want to hear from them. You don't want to hear from victims' groups.
Over and over and over again, this list that Mr. Holland has proposed is saying to Canadians that they don't want to hear from them.
I'll tell you why I'm frustrated. We came here with the complete opposite in mind. We are still willing to go through this list to have an equitable amount of witnesses so that we can hear each other's side. I'm not here proposing that we want 60 witnesses and you get none--of course not. That's ridiculous.
This is a democracy. I have a right to be able to present my bill. It's something that Canadians want to hear about.
Obviously I can't support this motion. I will be doing everything I can to ask each one of you to please reconsider.
Please withdraw this motion. Let's look at the list and let's find a compromise. I do believe that we could. I think we actually could look at this bill with real honesty and integrity.
A lot of us work...we're in the House of Commons and sometimes we cross the floor to chat with each other, because there are a lot of things we do agree on. Many times that's not what Canadians see. Canadians see the arguing. I see that we have a lot more in common than not. I think there are times we build on that. I think probably one of the best things I've learned in being a new member of Parliament is that there are times we really do get along and we have so much in common.
I know that on this issue we're not on the same page. I understand that. But I think that on the matter of deciding witnesses and on moving forward in this process, where Canadians are watching--Canadians care about this--let's look each other in the eye. Let's be real. Let's be genuine. For the sake of Canadians, let's have an equitable discussion on it, not where one side has more than the other. I'm not asking for more; equality is all I'm asking for.
Instead, with this witness list, with my being told I get half an hour, I feel I'm being told to sit down and shut up, which I've heard before from the Liberals and I haven't appreciated it. I feel that now, indirectly, basically the same thing is coming through.
I am very glad to hear that Mr. Comartin will be speaking. I will be very interested to hear the NDP position on this. I commend the NDP. They have been consistent in allowing free votes on private members' bills, and they've been consistent on allowing democracy.
Again, I don't agree with everything the NDP do, but I respect their stand. I respect that you know where the NDP stand. I believe that they really do stand on what they believe is principle. Democracy is a principle that the NDP has a long tradition of supporting.
I certainly am hoping that Mr. Comartin will not support this motion, that he will agree with me.
Let's have an equitable and good discussion, so we can each have the same amount of witnesses, so we can hear all sides of this issue, so that Canadians can be heard.
I thank you very much for the time, Mr. Chair.