It would have been nice if you had made the same argument to your minister at your caucus meeting. Before changing the rules, the legislation should have been changed, and the experts should have been heard here in committee. What would you have said if the Liberal government, when announcing changes to the marijuana legislation, had announced that pending the amendments to that legislation, everyone could smoke and traffic in marijuana in Canada and that there would be an amnesty? You would have said that before amending the marijuana legislation, you needed to hear from the experts.
Mr. MacKenzie, quite honestly, I think you are misinterpreting what you have heard here. If you think about it carefully, you will see that you are misinterpreting it. All we meant to say on this side of the table is that before changing the rules under the current legislation, the experts should have been heard. Since we haven't heard from any experts before amending the legislation, we are of the view that the legislation should apply as it was passed by Parliament. That's what Mr. Comartin clearly said.
If you wish to present a motion for us to hear from the experts, that, in my opinion, would be a way of delaying consideration of an urgent motion, and we will vote against it.
