Thank you.
I believe it's important to point out something that Ms. Dabrusin neglected to say verbally. As to whether or not it was a sneaky attempt to get this through or just an oversight, I leave that to her.
Nevertheless Ms. Dabrusin, in her written form of the amendment, makes it clear that she is replacing the obligation for ministers to appear with an obligation to explain in writing. I find that problematic. We are asking the ministers to come. We are asking for the opportunity to ask them questions. We are asking for an opportunity to engage with them. It would have been really nice for that to have been made clear from the beginning, because it makes it look like the wool is trying to be pulled over our eyes, which certainly doesn't give me a lot of faith, even in terms of making sure that we review or ask for that charter statement at the end of the study as opposed to now.
Again, I absolutely cannot vote in favour of this motion. The fact that ministers would not be asked to come and testify in person and that we would not have the opportunity to ask questions seems unacceptable to me. Further to that, unfortunately, I think faith is waning in this process and in the understanding that a charter statement might be done at the end. I'd prefer to have it done at the beginning, please.
Thank you.