Sure, I'll bring up some discussion, Chair.
The first is that, once again, a study is important. I find this quite baffling, actually. We just went through a 10-minute discussion: if we were to have a study, this would delay and obstruct the important work of committee in making forceful recommendations to the House.
Within minutes of having voted against a study, Mr. Valeriote is asking the committee to vote for a study. At the beginning of the meeting, Mr. Easter was asking for a study on a number of different matters. He was advocating quite strongly for a study because it's important for the committee to do that work and to ensure it has the facts in front of it. But when it came to the last motion, the study was considered to be an obstructionist tactic that would slow down and delay the work of the committee and somehow water down the important recommendation the committee should be making to the House.
I'd love to hear the explanation for this. How is it that in certain circumstances, when we're discussing opposition motions, studies are critical? They're absolutely essential. We must have them. But when we're discussing amendments to these motions from the government side, studies are a waste of time and should not be conducted; we should be delivering strongly worded messages to the House without studies.
That's the first point.