Thanks, Chair.
As I mentioned earlier, clearly this is an important issue, and I respect all of the opposition parties' comments that this is a fundamental part of our democratic process in the House. Again, I don't have any issue with that whatsoever, but any time--and I think one of my colleagues mentioned this earlier--there is a motion to amend the Standing Orders, it requires more than an immediate vote. I think we have to do at least a little bit of investigation and due diligence on this; otherwise, we'd certainly be doing an injustice both to this committee and, frankly, to all committees of the House. This committee is the one that is the mother ship of committees. We're the ones who analyze changes that affect all parliamentarians and all parties, whether those changes are to the Standing Orders or to other procedures of the House.
Notwithstanding the sincerity of Judy's motion here, I don't think we should consider doing a quick vote on this for even a moment, because it is a change to the Standing Orders.
One of the things I would suggest is that if we're going to have a full debate on this, a debate that is truly meant to examine what impact these changes would have and what consequences there would be, we should have at least a witness or two who are procedural experts come before the committee so that we can question them and talk to them about it. That's one thing I would be very firm on. If we're going to have a serious debate on this--and I think it requires a serious debate--I'm not saying it has to be an overly extended debate, but I do think we need a few procedural people to come in here to assist us and answer some questions that we may have for them. I know that my colleague, Mr. Hoback, seems to have a number of questions.
That's the first point I would make.
I have a few others, but I see Mr. Hoback is back at the table so, as I stated, I will turn it back to him, with your permission, Chair.