I did agree before we had the meeting that we would allow this motion to be put forward. I didn't expect quite the extent of the language explaining it. I think it was kind of bordering on a speech, but I guess there is more concern with taking a look at this.
First of all, normally we would deal with committee business in camera. That's sort of the established routine over the 10 years that I've been here.
I will comment that a June 2 date to do a study.... We've just had our very first meeting on a study on disruptive technologies in Canada, one that it seemed as though everybody was on side with, and something that's probably important to folks in all of our ridings. We are limited in the time that we have left before we go for the summer and into an election, so—at least for myself, I can't speak for everybody on our side—while I certainly would be very willing to undertake a tourism study, unfortunately, we don't have the time. We just don't have the number of meetings scheduled that would allow us to do that. In fact, if we were to pass this motion, it would mean that, in order to have a report ready, we'd probably have all of three meetings before we'd go into reporting, the first of which would have to be scheduled for two days from now, and probably we wouldn't be able to find witnesses to appear in two days anyway.
Why would we give priority to a brand new study over the study that we're doing right now, which is very important? This highlights what is a very disorganized approach by the opposition parties to this kind of thing. I think that, as a committee, we have to conduct our business in an orderly fashion. We have a study before us that we all agreed to that has just started today, and we look forward to making sure that we hear from witnesses who have a lot to say on this issue.
Mr. Chair, in line with what is the established convention for dealing with committee business, I move that we go into camera.