Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
He discussed how the committee went about studying the bill. Specifically, he talked about how the amendments were presented. I would like him to share his opinion about how the committee dealt with witnesses.
Some 70 witnesses appeared to speak to this bill. Although they were virtually unanimous on several aspects of the bill, the Conservatives do not seem to have taken that into account with respect to several potential amendments.
For example, with respect to the powers of the Chief Electoral Officer to investigate electoral fraud, the witnesses seemed to nearly unanimously suggest changes to the bill. The bill before us at third reading does not reflect that at all.
Was the government's purpose just to invite people to appear, let them talk, and then carry on doing what it planned to do in the first place? I thought that the whole point of committee work was to invite experts and take their opinions into consideration. If that is not the point, then why bother asking witnesses to appear before committees?