Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm a little uncomfortable with Mr. Oliphant's motion, not substance-wise, but form-wise, given that the clerk told us the motion was perfectly in order.
The idea that a special committee would not be allowed to convene a meeting at the request of four committee members strikes me as specious. The clerk told us that the motion was perfectly valid and in order. I think my preference is to vote on the motion now, instead of putting it off until later.
That said, I understand Mr. Oliphant's reservations. I, myself, have often raised concerns in the past when motions were put forward without members being advised and having discussed them ahead of time.
I have another concern related to our experience with Standing Order 106 and its non-application to the committee. It's the fact that four members of the same political party were able to request that a committee meeting be convened, giving the impression of a partisan manoeuvre. However, the committee must—at least, as I understand it—work in the spirit of co-operation, pursuant to the routine motion that we just adopted and that had been adopted previously.
If I were going to propose an amendment to Mr. Genuis's motion, it would be to have four members from at least two political parties represented on the committee.
Since I understand that there must first—