Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the many important things that she said, many of which I agree with.
I want to follow up on a question I had asked her colleague on the issue of the submission of written briefs. I asked him a two-part question and we only got to the response on the first part of it.
Many stakeholder groups submitted written briefs to the committee, and many of those briefs were given to members only on the day of. It was the contention of the Bloc member, and one I agreed with, that by refusing to delay clause by clause in order to allow it to look at these written briefs, the committee did not show much respect for the work of people who had studied the bill and submitted suggestions. Given that the government did not call this legislation for another five months, there would have been sufficient time for the committee to look at those briefs.
Why did the NDP vote against reviewing the many written briefs that were submitted before proceeding with clause by clause? There are many details in this bill. There might be good information about how things could be refined, expanded or adjusted in some way.
Why did the NDP not want to have those written briefs considered?