Thank you. I think we could have had this wrapped up a little bit quicker if we hadn't had some members from the government side shut down and adjourn debate on this. I think we could have wrapped this up long ago, and perhaps we could have gotten Minister Boissonnault here much earlier. I think that would have been a fantastic opportunity for us to show cordiality and really come together and understand that we want to have the best.
Importantly, the second reason I am moving this subamendment is that, broadly speaking, I do have serious concerns about the prestudy of Bill C-73. I understand that there are certain stakeholder groups that want us to conduct a prestudy as a priority to them. I also understand that we don't know when the next election is going to be, and people want to have legislation that they care about dealt with prior to that.
Listen, I understand that, Mr. Chair, but the reality around this table is that none of us knows when that next election is going to come. There are rumours circulating around this place, around Parliament Hill and on social media that the Prime Minister may prorogue Parliament at any time, and all of our committee's work will be thrown out.
In the House of Commons, you can move a motion to bring back to the House of Commons all of the legislative agenda of the government and potentially a private member's bill if they so choose, but all of the work that we have done as a committee is lost; it's gone.
What worries me is the idea of doing a prestudy on Bill C-73. In my view, it's frankly absurd. Also, in my view, and I think reasonably in the view of anybody who's an observer of this committee or of politics broadly, it appears to be an effort to put on the back burner the many other ongoing and important pieces of work this committee has been undertaking for the past many months in the hope that they may never have to be dealt with.
Now, Mr. Chair, I'd like to quickly outline some of the work that is outstanding at this committee.
We had a meeting that we debated a lot about afterwards on how we deal with reports or a letter from the five, I believe it was, oil and gas CEOs. Whether we like their appearance or not, they came, and we should, in some way, at the request of the committee, as previously done, highlight what that appearance meant and what they said, and then report that back to the House, which I believe was the motion previously passed.
Towards the end of the summer, we all flew back from our respective ridings a bit early, for one or two meetings, I believe. That carried on at the start of our session here into September, following the federal government's edict and egregious government overreach, which would put mills and entire communities out of business when logging is prevented from happening in the vast—