This is exceptionally difficult because of the cooperation that we've had with Mr. Scarpaleggia and obviously by the questions that came from the Conservative side along with the other side to the people who came from my constituency, representing the rural rail museums.
Obviously, there is a tremendous amount of empathy, sympathy, whatever the appropriate word is, for where this motion is coming from. I have had the opportunity to contact Mr. Anderson and Mr. Johnson, who were the witnesses here, and they were concerned about this particular motion, wondering where it left them. So then we started to have just a small amount of dialogue about their becoming satellites to this and so on. The point is that while I am very sympathetic to the intent here, we simply don't have enough information for the committee to be binding when the committee does come forward with a report on museums, because this question of satellites or other things simply hasn't been canvassed or isn't part of this.
So with that in mind, I would ask if we could have a further amendment, simply because it isn't necessarily automatic that the government be given the opportunity to submit a dissenting report. In other words, there has to be some kind of designation, because if the report comes out without a dissenting report and we may be taken as having a negative vote on this, it doesn't mean anything. If this is going to go forward, we would want to be able to put down in black and white where we're coming from and why. I have no idea what that information or what that report would say, because we simply haven't had time to work this out either as a committee or as a Conservative caucus, or to get sufficient testimony and ideas.
So I would certainly be recommending to my colleagues that we would be voting against both the amendment and the motion, but not from the perspective of ill will, just from the perspective that this motion is very significantly premature.