I am contemplating, Chair, how much longer somebody can chirp at me while I'm trying to get my point across. I usually, but not always, give respect to all of my colleagues, regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on. I try my very best to listen to and understand their points of view. It is quite disrespectful for members to be yelling across the way to throw me off the points I'm trying to make in discussing a motion that was put forward while we had witnesses here. I had questions for them on this exact issue to help me understand how the recommendations I was talking about were being implemented by this organization and to help me understand what processes they had gone through to make sure that what happened did not impact the trust that Canadians have in our democratic institutions, including this one.
We know how important climate change is. We know how important it is to ensure that Canadian clean-tech companies have the advantage they need to be world leaders in combatting what is the biggest challenge of our lifetime. What I don't understand is why members opposite are trying to muzzle me, trying to chirp at me, trying to bully me into submission, or whatever it is they're trying to do. I often don't like what they have to say either, but that doesn't mean I stare them down, as members are doing right now, or talk over them, or yell and scream, or find ways to end what is a healthy conversation and debate.
I will get back to my point, and I'm hoping that members opposite will listen, because what I propose is an alternative viewpoint. I think it is possible for us to disagree on viewpoints, to have conversations and to then come together in a consensus or collaborative way without being disagreeable, without having to chirp at each other, without having to put each other down. It is very possible that Mr. Perkins is a very respectable and honourable member of Parliament who serves his community very well.