The member opposite, Mr. McTeague, made my point exactly. He made my point for me. He talks about the supremacy of Parliament and its ability to do its job. That's exactly what my argument has been. When a bill is sent from second reading to the committee for study, the committee could decide that we don't want to deal with it and let the 60 days lapse and let it go back to the House. I have never been on a committee where I have agreed, whether or not my party wants me to.... I am always pushing for us to look at private members' bills, because I think they're tools that are abused and misused and are not set up for the purposes they were originally for.
If the supremacy of Parliament or the ability to do your job is a fundamental right of a member of Parliament, this is exactly what this motion overrides. It overrides all our rights to be able to look at the bill clause by clause and discuss it with those officials who have to implement any change that any bill makes. At the end of the day, we are the ones who pass the laws and formulate the legislation, but the bureaucratic level has to do the implementation. Because Parliament is supreme, I don't think it's unreasonable for a member of Parliament to ask to look at this legislation clause by clause, as I have done with every other private member's bill.
So I think Mr. McTeague is right: it is our responsibility and our job to do that. That's why I'm opposed to this; it's because it overrides that responsibility.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.