I was making it to the amendment; it could easily be made to the amendment. I don't want to dwell on procedure, Mr. Chairman, but we should not end up in a situation where the two choices you are offering change what used to work well.
My colleague, Mr. Martin, raised this earlier. There are committees, where as you know Mr. Chairman, things went badly to the point where there were strikes. Certain committees refused to sit because things were going so badly. Ours worked well, and all of a sudden today, we're told that it didn't work well. When we left in the spring, you yourself said that this was one of the committees where we had accomplished the most work. The only heavier order of reference was that of employability, but we did complete all the others. The one on employability is under way.
I find it unfortunate that today, under false pretenses, there's an attempt to change what was working well and that effectively removes the democratic nature that characterizes this committee and was underscored by the chairman of the committee in the two previous Parliaments. It is in committees that the opposition has more opportunities to ask questions. It's the only place where it can truly do so. The party in power is there to respond, because it has the power. Mr. Chairman, I'm very surprised that this is being raised today. I'm also surprised by the arguments that you yourself are submitting. I'm very surprised, Mr. Chairman.
Is there a desire here to see what used to work well suddenly work badly? I don't think that that's your intention, but that will be the result.