I just wanted to answer my colleague, Mr. Genuis, who is still fairly new to this committee. The way this committee works is by consensus. That is really the best way to work. Mr. McCauley knows this to be true.
Because we're acting on behalf of all Canadians and all parliamentarians, I think it is supposed to be a committee that is non-partisan and objective, where we're looking at verified reports. Our work is to.... Sometimes documents, accounting statements and so on don't get amplified the way they should, and where we are able as a committee to explore—and we have taken the committee in a direction that I find very laudable, which is studying the environment commissioner's reports, which come under the auspices of the Auditor General—we've been able to lift up those reports and amplify those very important findings and conclusions.
That is why it's important for us to have these discussions, because if we're going to take the public accounts committee in a radically different direction, I would say to my colleagues who hope to form government one day that they will be saddled with the consequences of that, and I don't think it's a very positive direction for anyone who is represented here today.
That is why I think the discussion is important. It just seems like a laundry list to me of what we're asking for, a doubling of work spilling into other mandates and, quite frankly, I have to question the motives of some members here. I don't like to be in that position, because it has not been my position on this committee in the past.
Thank you.