Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm in complete agreement with Iqra. She asked a rhetorical question, though. She asked if we are once again trying to malign a future witness at this committee, and I would say in answer that these nicknames that get tied to people already malign their character. They remind you very much of a former president of the United States.
I have to tell you, as Iqra asked, we would like to think we're better than that here in Canada. When you start the motion, or the preface to the motion, with nicknames attached to people's names, you're already maligning a potential witness.
I thought I heard the possibility of an amendment or more amendments coming later, but I would be interested in hearing from some of the other members as to whether they support going down the road of asking someone who may or may not be a chair, may or may not be hired or may or may not be an adviser. I would like to think that every political party is smart enough to have advisers and to bring smart people in to help advise them on how their party would proceed.
I think it was René who made a comment very similar to that. I would be very surprised. We know the Conservatives have advisers. We know the Conservatives have people who attend their caucus meetings and advise their leader, and I can only assume that the other parties do the exact same thing. Why wouldn't they? It makes perfect sense to try to get smart people in to try to advise your party. There are a lot of assumptions in that motion, whether it's a chair, whether it's a hired person or whether it's...who knows?
I will leave it there, Mr. Chair, and let other people speak as to whether the committee wants to go down this road. You started your conversation at the meeting today, Mr. Chair, about the subcommittee, which I support greatly, and finding a calendar. I remember when I first joined this you were very hopeful that we would stick to a calendar, and we didn't. I'm sure all parties played a part in that. I do like your hopeful direction that we can move forward on things, tie some bows on some reports and do some actual good work here rather than a motion by tweet in the middle of an afternoon on the day of the committee. I don't think that's productive. It becomes reactive rather than proactive. I don't think it gets us, as Ms. Khalid said, where we need to be. We're better than that.
I will pause for now and listen to other speakers to see if there's an interest in going down the road on a motion like this.
Thank you.