It doesn't need to be this way.
The motion is pointless. The actual result of this is largely pointless, other than that it completely breaks every principle of the way the committee process is supposed to function as it relates to bills and to our responsibility to the people who elect us to properly study legislation.
I completely don't understand this. We're stuck here, because on our side, or from my standpoint, the only way I can stop this is to discuss it. The only way we can stop it is to discuss it.
We'd like to stop right now. We'd like to hear from the witnesses who have come before the committee to talk about the Investment Canada Act, but we can't, because it would be completely irresponsible of me, as a person elected to represent my constituents, to allow a bill to pass for political purposes without actually having properly inspected it.
It's a conundrum for me. I don't know how to respond to this. Quite honestly, I'm looking for some indication from one member of the combined opposition—just one member—who says that the Investment Canada Act is important, that these witnesses are important to hear, and that there is a willingness to defer this in the interest of hearing from those witnesses. However, I can't allow a piece of legislation to pass through the committee that I'm a member of, that I'm responsible for, without our actually properly looking at it. That's completely undemocratic; it's completely opposed to the systems we have set up in over 140 years in this Parliament.