Mr. Chairman, maybe we should be proposing a sub-sub-subamendment, because what you do by proposing this amendment is to constrain the motion. The motion, as is, is broad. The motion, as is, would allow the most suitable people to come to this committee and to bring testimony. If we do a sub-sub-subamendment, and heaven forbid we happen to leave one person off who turns out to be very valuable, what then?
The kind of list the members are proposing is exactly the kind of thing that goes on in a steering committee. A steering committee sits down in camera, goes over a list of potential witnesses, comes back to the committee of the whole, here, and presents that list. It does not constrain in any way. For example, if there was a subsequent executive meeting, there could be the proposal for 1, 2, 3, 10, or 25 more names. Again, that list could come back to this committee.
My point is that the motion, as such, is acceptable to the government and is a workable motion by which decisions can be made by the executive committee as to who the most suitable witnesses would be. If we were going to be proposing a sub-sub-subamendment, in it's own right, it's really quite facetious. But let me propose the sub-sub-subamendment of Anne McLellan, Art Eggleton, Bill Graham, Minister Pratt, and all the Liberal ministers of justice. Then we have a motion that totally constrains this committee. Until we have worked out the testimony of this shopping list of people, the committee will not have been able to complete the work that is envisioned under this very valuable motion.
Therefore, if my colleagues on the other side are really set on going with all of these amendments and all of these names, I would ask them to explain to me what value they are going to have by going with amendments, subamendments, and sub-sub-subamendments? What value is going to be received? How is this motion going to become stronger?