Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, David.
One of the advantages of a discussion of this structure, a filibuster, is that I have had time to write down what I want to say. I'm a much better writer than I am a speaker, so I hope you'll forgive me for reading my comments. I'm getting a little tired and will be brief.
We are, of course, always open to further off-line discussion, as we tried earlier. I'm always open to doing more.
The motion, as presented by Scott Simms, is far from imposing our will. I want to make that clear. We want to have a discussion, and the House leader wants to add her voice to a study already in progress. I don't see a problem with a government that ran on an agenda of modernizing Parliament having the House leader express her views. This is a request to expand an existing study. The motion is not creating changes. It is trying to get a study running to propose thematic rather than specific changes. We have the S. O. 51 debate, and now the letter from the minister, as guidance and suggestions for topics to discuss.
I don't think we should prejudge the study. I am fully aware that we can one day return to your side of the table and that you will have plenty of opportunities to obstruct further along in this process.
This motion is not drafting standing orders—