Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a few comments regarding the remarks that I just heard.
I'll begin with a few of the things mentioned by my colleague Mr. Green.
With the utmost respect, I do take issue with his reference to the fact.... I believe he said we shouldn't be covering up anything here. Nobody is covering up anything here. It's quite the contrary. Not only do we have this committee doing this work, but we also have a full inquiry that will be put in place between now and April 24. There is an interest on all sides of this House, and very much on this side, to continue to delve into this matter and to provide answers to Canadians. I would remind my colleague that we also have to provide that transparency and those answers in a timely fashion.
I would also like to take issue with the fact that what we are talking about here is very much dependent on the advice we will receive from.... I believe we just agreed to, and we can eventually discuss a motion to that effect, legal counsel, either independent legal counsel, as Mr. Motz proposed, or the law clerk or the Senate law clerk.
In this discussion, I believe it was my colleague Mr. Green who referred to what he believed was the legislative intent of section 62. I would propose that we must hear from former Conservative minister Perrin Beatty, who is the drafter of this piece of legislation, if we are to delve into the legislative intent of section 62 and the work of our committee.
I would like to move at this time that we adjourn debate on this motion and that we discuss a motion which was previously circulated to invite with urgency the law clerks, as well as the Honourable Perrin Beatty, in order for us to get a sense of the issues that we're all speculating on, and then come back to this motion as put forward by my colleague Mr. Motz.
To be clear, Mr. Chair, I move to adjourn debate.