I just reflect, as a new member of Parliament, that one of the orientation sessions had a respected and distinguished speaker--committee member, Conservative--who said that you can expect to prepare three hours for every one hour of witness. By my tally, if we go with this motion we'll be sitting about 24 hours a week. If we do that--listening to this eminent Conservative--we'll be up to 72 hours a week. There is this thing called the House over here that our whips want us to sit in sometimes. Then there are some other things.
I find it ironic that something as important as accountability--if this went through, respectfully--would be put through in a very haphazard fashion. Unless Mr. Poilievre can lead the way, as he did in The Ottawa Sun this morning, and say, “Well, look, let's not waste time discussing the $1,000 whistle-blower item”.... That's probably two or three hours we wasted on that. If that's a giveable and there are other things we can work toward closing the issues on, why don't we spend some time doing that, as opposed to putting witnesses through unnecessary preparation?
I just think it's a little premature to do this. There have to be other ways, from my municipal background, that people can work to narrow the issues. That's why I'll be voting against it, I guess.