Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing profound disappointment on the part of the official opposition for what is effectively a hammer being dropped on a very important bill, limiting debate and limiting parliamentary scrutiny.
Last week, we proposed what I thought was a reasonable amendment to the motion. The amendment would have allowed an expedited process of parliamentary scrutiny and would have allowed timely and thorough examination of this bill.
The challenge we have is that we are seeing this pattern when it comes to dealing with legislation. We have a two and a half billion-dollar bill that is being supported by all sides. That makes it even more important that we provide scrutiny by having the committee look at this and be able to provide reasonable amendments if required and, more important, have the minister come to committee to answer the questions of parliamentarians. After all, that is our job. It is our job to provide oversight on spending.
I will remind the Speaker as well that the Senate is not even sitting this week so there is really no reason for this bill to be rushed. Therefore, we have an opportunity to look at the bill and provide some reasonable amendments.
Given all of the circumstances we are dealing with, including that the Senate is not sitting and the fact that it has all-party support, can the minister give me one coherent reason why we would need to rush this bill at this point and not have parliamentary oversight over this piece of legislation?