Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I've been a member since 2004. I've always been a critic on certain issues, and this is the first time I've seen an operating method like this one. In other committees, where we had a steering committee to establish the agenda, it seems to me that simplified matters. You've made the choice to do this differently, for the matter to be decided in plenary committee. Moreover, I must say that I'm not making a big deal out of this and that we must absolutely debate the issue. However, there is something I don't understand.
We are asked, in good faith, to submit suggestions for business at the outset—I believe that was done at the first or second meeting—subjects that we would like to see dealt with by this committee, which I'm doing. Colleagues from the other parties have had the opportunity to do so as well. We studied the QUEST program, and I would have to reread all the documents from the other committees, but my motion was introduced a few months ago, and it is now being shelved. Now I'm being told no, that I shouldn't come and impose future business. I never wanted to impose anything; I simply wanted to find an interesting subject for this committee, to fuel the debates. So I'm not setting a trap for the government, and I want to make that clear because it's as though people were afraid of the person I am. I've always worked with a great deal of good will. If you want to defer this and examine future business, that's not a problem for me, because it seems clear to me that I don't have the support of the other committee members regarding this study. I must tell you that I am disappointed.