Yes, of course.
Madam Chair, to be honest, I find this offensive. This is the first time I've been on a committee where the committee has decided on a workplan, has chosen matrimonial rights as a priority--probably the first one we were going to work on--and the government insists on bringing forward a motion.
I'm sorry, but I didn't realize the minister ran this committee. Regarding the comments made by Ms. Smith about cutting through whatever and making sure it doesn't get lost, I don't think there's any member on this side who felt it was getting lost, that it wasn't a priority. It was raised by Madam Neville at the very first meeting. I raised it and all of us had it as a first priority when we sent in our priority lists. With the exception of tabling reports, that was the first report that we were to work on.
I don't understand why we need to have this. I find it offensive. I think there's an attempt here at trying to show that there's more interest in that issue from one side than the other. Quite frankly, this is not how I'm used to working. When there's a session for discussing the agenda of the committee, people put forward ideas and they work with consensus. This was one where there was consensus. We agreed that we would meet jointly with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs because we had decided we were working on this issue.
In my mind, this is done. We voted on it as one of the key priorities--probably the first one--and we were already setting up joint meetings with the standing committee. I don't see the need for a motion for something the committee has already decided to do.
I'm sorry, I find that quite offensive. And if this is how it's going to operate, I guess from now on we will all have to get ourselves organized and bring forward motions on everything we discuss in this committee as a way of one-upping each another. That's what I see happening. It's unfortunate. It's not what I would like to see.