Mr. Speaker, I will start slowly. But my speech may become more passionate later on.
First, our amendments were rejected because they were out of order and could not be debated. Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 pertain to the precautionary principle, which is a good thing when one has to make an important decision. The precautionary principle gives a direction when officials and an agency, which does not exist by the way, make decisions.
Lawmakers, and we are part of them, were providing guidance for future decisions. Previously, the legislation was reviewed every ten years. From now on, it will be reviewed every seven years.
Before I get to that, I will speak about the last motion, the amendment proposed by our friends from the government party. Members of the committee were taken in. I personally voted against that motion, against the proposed amendment.
However, our Liberal friends said “We agree with that. Let us remove the Senate and the joint committee”. They sought to please but knew full well that their motion would be defeated in this House. It goes against parliamentary tradition. So they made a correction. They were proud at committee. They boasted and said “Very well, we will give power back to the House of Commons”. However, they knew full well that the government would not allow it. It makes no sense. So they changed that.
Between you and me, we did not agree with having the House of Commons act alone. It is a prerogative and a tradition in the House of Commons. That motion will certainly gather support. But this proves that members of the Liberal committee, or I should say the Liberal members of the committee—