Mr. Chair, the idea of the member opposite is quite good.
I think these kinds of motions really draw the ire of someone who actually wants us to do our work. This has obviously received.... This is a government bill. It should be treated with respect. However, so should Parliament.
If parliamentarians cannot be given the time to, first of all, see which witnesses we should be inviting to our study, then we will not have good testimony. If we do not have good testimony, we are not doing our jobs.
I think that this is completely abhorrent to proper process and proper conduct by parliamentarians. I think no one will disagree with me that this is fast and loose and is not going to, at the end of day, produce a parliamentary study that we can be proud of.
If members opposite are okay with that, then just simply say yes to Mr. MacKinnon's motion, but we owe a bit more to this place than simply rubber-stamping what comes in from the government.
Believe me, I heard the same kind of stuff when I was on that side. But you have a greater appreciation for this place when we actually let it function, and committee is the one chance where parliamentarians get to do a deeper dive into these bills.
S I would ask Mr. MacKinnon to push back on this and to not engage in such a quick and hurried study. We are not doing our jobs. We are not doing service to this place, and I think at the end of the day, we let ourselves down, Mr. Chair.