Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate that this is the third amendment and that all three amendments introduced to date have been rejected by members sitting on this side of the table. Clearly, on this side, we have verbally expressed what we would like to see happen. We have made our arguments and will make others. We have clearly expressed why we only wanted to sit two days a week. We wish to have the public part of our meeting held on Monday afternoons and Wednesday afternoons. A legislative committee is not a committee for expediting business, even though that was the impression Mr. Braid was under earlier on.
A legislative committee is struck because when ministers table bills they may choose to have them studied by a legislative committee. Why would the spirit of a bill be referred to a legislative committee? Because the minister in question wants a dedicated committee to study the bill. If the bill were to be sent to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, there may be other motions on the table, as you know. The same thing may occur if the bill is sent to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
The idea of creating a legislative committee is not to expedite the work, expedite the procedures, even though, in the past, a number of these committees have worked in this way. In 2006, for C-2, the Accountability Act, it was hell, it made no sense. Members sat six days a week on this committee; in fact I think they sat 40 hours per week. It made no sense, it was not desirable. In any event, we saw later on how the things that had been written into that bill were not consistent with what the government ended up doing. Perhaps government members should have taken more time to read the bill and then to apply its principles.
The Bloc Québécois will be voting against this amendment and hopes there will be no further amendments, so we may vote on the main motion.
Thank you.