Thank you very much for these clarifications.
I don't want to take up any more of your time, Mr. Chair, but I just want to share my thoughts with you.
In fact, when the minister told us he was open to our proposing amendments to Bill C‑22 , I realized that, from the very beginning—and it's true that we're only on amendment BQ-7—no amendments from the opposition have been adopted. On the other hand, we voted in favour of a subamendment proposed by the Liberals, which almost completely distorts the bill.
As a member of an opposition party, I find it hard to be accused of systematic obstruction, because it affects me personally. I tell myself that my job is to ask questions. So when I'm told that our committee has almost become a farce, I feel insulted. I just want to tell you—and remind those who do not serve as standing members—that our committee has been nearly exemplary.
We managed to reach an agreement to pass Bill C‑8 on cybersecurity and Bill C‑12, and we did so because there was dialogue. The government cooperated.
Right now, Mr. Housefather and Mr. Ramsay can complain all they want; they can invoke the Standing Orders as they please—but I still feel that whether the opposition parties are present or absent makes no difference. They already know they're going to vote against the amendments, and it bothers them to have to work until midnight. I understand that, but I'm here to try to understand the explanations—and to gain a better understanding of Bill C‑22.
So I don't think that, at this stage, asking questions and sitting until midnight is a joke or that I'm doing it on purpose to slow down the proceedings. In fact, what bothers me is the feeling that, no matter what I say and no matter what the answers are, the Liberals have already made up their minds and that on Friday, the bill will ultimately be passed.
As for me, I don't call that collaboration. I'm disappointed that, as we speak, I no longer sense the open-mindedness the minister showed at the beginning. I understand that my colleagues are impatient, but, really, they just have to wait until Friday at 2:30 p.m. Bill C‑22 will then be passed, and they will have gotten what they wanted. However, in the meantime, we shouldn't be criticized for asking questions, because that is our right. That's all we have left.
I just want to set the record straight regarding what I've been hearing for a while now. I know it would be easier for us to sit here tonight until midnight to fast-track the bill, but the Liberals will get their fast-track treatment on Thursday. So I'm asking them for patience and tolerance, because if they were in the opposition's shoes, they wouldn't find it funny to be treated the way they're treating us. No matter what we contribute, it's not taken into account at all.
Personally, I'm disappointed, and I want to say so publicly. I had confidence in the openness shown by the minister, but that is no longer the case. That being said, thank you very much. I think you've explained things to me clearly. Of course, I'm struggling with this. I'm torn, because I also trust the Barreau du Québec.
I'm wondering. Where do we draw the line? Would it be so bad to raise the threshold? Would it be so bad if you didn't have everything, so that we could reassure certain witnesses—who, in my opinion, are credible—that the government is also making an effort? Would it be so bad if we didn't give you everything you need—since doubts still remain—but if you accepted that we may not have done the work as thoroughly as we should have, given that we did receive 100 briefs and 70 letters? I've read many of them; some are very credible.
I would have liked to ask questions of software architects and computer scientists, but there weren't any. I don't know if Mr. Bilodeau is a computer scientist, but I still have questions. In fact, as a member of the opposition, I'm willing not to obstruct for the sake of it, because I tell myself that, in any case, the die is cast. The government has made its bed.
Dear witnesses, you have been very patient. You listened to us, and you answered our questions. Honestly, I think it's extraordinary that you've been so patient. I think you should serve as a model for the government members sitting on the other side. After all, this is your job, and you're doing it with diligence and professionalism. I want to thank you. If we ask questions, it's because we're genuinely interested. When asking questions is all the power we have left, you'll understand that we'll use it to the fullest. We'll use it until midnight, because on Thursday, all we'll be able to do is say “yes” or “no”. For us, it's as if we couldn't contribute at the outset because the majority government is preventing us from doing so, and it won't compromise or negotiate. It's a flat refusal.
I wanted to deliver my message at least once. I won't talk about this again for the rest of the meeting to avoid any accusations of filibustering or being off topic. I feel strongly about this, and I feel that it's important to share this with you. This isn't how we work on a bill that changes a culture and that changes a privacy principle. This isn't how we work. I find that there has been abuse, and I wanted to say so. Now that this is out of the way, I would like to inform you that I've finished speaking on amendment BQ‑7.