Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I may, I'd like to respond to the comments of my colleague Mr. Green and, as a matter of fact, many colleagues around the table who talk about the spending we do in this place and what it gets spent on. There are comments and critiques on visits abroad and so on and so forth, yet we are so cavalier in the willingness to double up the high cost of House resources and the time of our interpreters and the clerk's time. At least on the government side, my colleagues and I do not want to double up the work of committees but actually do the work that Canadians want us to do, and do it in an efficient manner that gets to the heart of the issues at hand, with strong recommendations to take back to the House. That's what Canadians want us to do, Mr. Chair.
With regard to the comments of my colleague Mr. Green, whom I respect immensely—he does great work—my point of debate is that we should not spend the extra resources of the House on work that is already being done, really, for these political points rather than for the real work of getting to the heart of the issue when my colleague Mr. Villemure has been offered alternatives that are well within the purview of committee work to get to the heart of the questions that he has raised. It works both ways. Do we want to get work done in this committee? Do we want to see answers to the questions that Canadians ask us?
I've seen it time and again. I sat on the heritage committee over a recent issue and just watched as the francophone community, as the Jewish community—many communities—wanted really important answers from officials on a very upsetting process, and Conservatives filibustered for well over an hour and wasted the time of officials who took the time to come in to answer the questions of the public.
Therefore, I would use caution in throwing stones about who is wasting time. I'm trying to make sure that we don't waste money. I'm trying to make sure that we don't waste resources. You just voted against not wasting time and not wasting resources, only to have an entirely new study brought up into the committee, something that's already being studied elsewhere.
This is not the first time that this has been done in this committee room. I see colleagues shaking their heads, but let's have a frank and honest discussion about this. You wanted it in public. The public is seeing this, and the public is seeing that there is a willingness by the opposition to double up—to triple up in cases—motions that are word for word the same, with the exception of a semicolon or a letter, in order to waste time.
So, yes, I will stand up for that. I will fight against wasting time on an entire new study when there is space in a committee to do this work and when members of this committee could well use their time to ask the key questions to get the lens and perspective they want at the appropriate place where these things are being studied.
Mr. Chair, I express my deep and profound disappointment at my colleagues' unwillingness to understand that I came here to work on studies like the ATIP study. We've agreed to the ArriveCAN study, even though it's being studied in OGGO. However, the opposition continues to waste the time of this committee for doing actual work.
While my colleague Mr. Green may be frustrated by seeing repeated comments against the wasting of House resources, I will say respectfully, sir, that I don't want to see us wasting good taxpayer money by the doubling up and tripling up of studies.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.