Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think I can speak for all the Conservative members and say that we are in support of the motion, but this is a very interesting procedural tactic. I want your perspective on this, Mr. Chair, because if we set the precedent that literally anything a witness brings up could trigger motions around our standing orders, we're setting a really bad precedent.
The reason we have the 48-hour notice is to give members the time to think about what's being put forward and have time to prepare remarks on it. If we set the precedent that, any item a witness brings up can be used as a justification for putting forward a motion without 48 hours' notice, we're setting a very bad precedent.
If the member is trying to say that she doesn't need unanimous consent to put this forward, I would ask, out of respect for the committee, that we have unanimous consent, rather than accepting the precedent that we can bring up a motion without 48 hours' notice based on what a witness says.