Thank you, Chair.
I have a few other things. This motion is obviously deeply flawed. I would be very open to a discussion of some of the issues raised by the motion at another time, but I think this motion is not in order for a number of other reasons, one of which is that it seeks to not withstand the rules of the House.
The rules of the House prescribe a Standing Order 106(4) procedure for bringing witnesses in. This motion appears to say that you have to have unanimity of all parties before you can convene a meeting outside of the regular time slots. That is a violation of Standing Order 106(4), so it's not even within the committee's authority to prescribe that.
This was hastily drafted. Even if we're going to treat this motion with some degree of seriousness, it's flawed from a procedural standpoint. I don't think this is what this is about. I think the Liberals are hearing harsh testimony from witnesses who are calling out their own failures. The motion has to be written and presented properly if we're going to be able to actually consider it.
Chair, I'd like to ask you maybe to rule on that component of it in particular. I don't think that it's been raised yet in terms of those limitations. Maybe if the committee passes a motion that tries to not withstand the rules of the House, then it just doesn't apply or something, but this is just another issue with this.
I think we should come back to this motion. Again, there are things to discuss, but I think we can come back to it at another point in time.
Maybe, Chair, I'll wait for your feedback on that.