Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the members' speeches. I also read the minutes and some of the witnesses' statements beforehand. I am very interested in this issue, as are many of us, I am sure.
I just want to take a few minutes to share my opinion. It is a shame that the committee did not study the amendments proposed by our colleague from Burnaby—Douglas. A committee is supposed to consider our colleagues' suggestions for improving the bills it is studying.
When that does not happen, I cannot, as a parliamentarian, feel anything other than disappointment, not only for the member who was able to express himself, but also for our colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. I am disappointed because of what this means for all parliamentarians in this House who have the opportunity to submit a private member's bill or motion during a given session of Parliament.
As I said, studying the amendments proposed by the member for Burnaby—Douglas would probably have helped to save this bill, if I may say so. At least by studying them, we would have made an effort to save it.
I believe it is essential that we give private members' bills every opportunity to succeed, because introducing a bill gives a parliamentarian a chance to present something that we really care about, something our constituents really care about. It is important to introduce it, to speak in favour of it, to debate and discuss it, often, fortunately, with a greater degree of civility than what we are seeing here. This is essential, for without it, we would not have private members' bills.
I believe that this bill in particular deserved a better fate than the one that committee members condemned it to by refusing to study our NDP colleague's amendments. That makes me very sad, and I just wanted to share that with everyone.