Thank you.
I'm very disappointed, because I have to leave in a minute. It was great to be back on PROC with Mr. Nater—some good times—and I always appreciate listening to Mr. Blaikie. I have to disagree, though, or I don't understand his point about it being the only route to an election. We've been very close to an election, less than 30 votes, a number of times recently.
The point I want to make is that I've been in Parliament since the year 2000 or so. From what I understand, it's a tradition in Parliament, a procedure we follow by rote, that when bills are sent to committee, that's a priority on the committee agenda. Certainly, there are different opinions on the study and where a study's at. If there are certain motions with unreasonable clauses that could take a long time, I would think that the precedent in committee, the standard normally followed, is that the committee move on to the debate on what has been referred to them, especially in an urgent situation where Canadians are at risk.
As I said, we've been less than 30 votes away from an election a number of times. It's not inconceivable. I just wanted to make that point before I have to leave. Hopefully, I'll get back. I had a whole bunch of things I wanted to say today, back on the motion, but I don't think we should be saying them right now. We have an urgent bill before us that will affect the safety of Canadians and will affect the ability of some older people to vote.
Thank you, Madam Chair.