Mr. Speaker, my question is for the member who just spoke. Does the government still consider the investigative hearing provisions—where a person is required to witness—to be an important tool that will enable the police to fill in the gaps in a poorly managed investigation or an investigation where the police have thrown away recordings of conversations, as they tried to do in the case of the Air India investigation?
The fire extinguisher analogy was a good one. Certainly, the fact that the provisions have never been used is not proof that they are useless, but it might be an indication, just as the reason for not having used the extinguisher is that there had never been a fire.
In his speech, the member explained that we are still dealing with a fire. Terrorism is still a threat. Nevertheless, we have never had an opportunity to use these two measures preventively.
Has it occurred to the member that there might be other reasons these measures have never been used? I would like him to tell us why. My colleague knows that I disagreed with part of this report.
Why is the government not heeding the recommendations in the majority report of the committee? They are majority recommendations because members of the government agreed to them. We spent over 100 hours in committee listening to witnesses.
What good is a committee if the government refuses to consider its unanimous recommendations?