Thanks, Mr. Chair.
There are just a couple things.
When I look at the format that we had proposed, it was one for one: one Liberal study, one Bloc study, one NDP study, the Conservatives. Then, in the intermediate or near term, we would have our study done.
There's a song by Queen that says “I want it all, and I want it now.” That's what this motion seems to be. It seems like we're flooding this all with a lot of Conservative studies. I think it impedes us from being able to be flexible, nimble, adaptable and responsive to other things that might come up.
I don't get the sense of collegiality here in terms of working with each other to get studies from each of the parties out. When I look at what was originally proposed—the one study, the second study, the third study, the fourth study, and then we would certainly have enough there for a calendar to be put out, and then to work collectively to repeat that cycle—that seems to be collegial. It seems to be fair; it seems to enable us to not be chained by things that might come up that we might not be able to address.
That's not to say these studies are not important. Of course, they're important. Every one of them is important. However, I think it impedes our ability to be flexible should something, God forbid, happen on the west coast and we want to be able to double and triple down our efforts in terms of doing a study.
This particular motion really handcuffs us in a lot of ways. If we go the original route, it provides greater flexibility and adaptability and it's also fair. I think that's what Canadians are looking for us to do in this Parliament.