Okay.
In that case, Mr. Chair, I will not support the motion in front of me. I don't think the priorities are correct, to be honest with you. I believe a discussion of the CRTC decision is appropriate. I also believe that a discussion of where we're going on the Investment Canada Act is appropriate. I can tell you how I'm voting. I'm not voting for any the clauses; I'm not supporting what's going to happen there. It's going to pass and likely go back to the House. I don't think it should take up committee time as an “every other week” approach. This motion in its current state.... I don't think it's appropriate. I think we should deal with those other two much higher priority issues, and then when we're done with those, because we have till May, we can have a couple of meetings for the private member's bill on statistics.
I have a bit of a bug about private members' bills, I've come to the conclusion, whether I'm on this committee or on the finance committee. We have a finance private member's bill that's down to one sentence. Is that the right way for us to be making legislative changes? I remind our colleagues that if you want to make a private member's bill that the sky is blue, you ask the Library of Parliament which act that would fall under and they send you the legal wording. There is no research. There's no background to it. You can do anything you want with a private member's bill.
From a system point of view, I think they play a role and highlight an issue, which this one is doing. I don't necessarily agree with what's in the bill, but it does highlight the issue. It's not a priority for us, as a team of the Government of Canada, to be looking at it. That's why I think in the concurrent system, if that's what we're going to go to, it's much more appropriate to have the Investment Canada Act and the CRTC decision happening at the same time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.