I support the sentiment of this amendment. It shows an attempt in a responsible way to compel the government to respond responsibly. But the original motion was a motion expressing our sentiment about the correspondence and the communication back to the committee as a consequence of our report.
I worry that if this amendment were to pass at this point in time, I believe we can have another motion that's put forward as a separate motion that deals with this particular issue of the government's response to it and timelines, but I think that should occur after the minister appears before the committee to provide an explanation as to why he has dismissed the report so out of hand.
Although I support and concur with the sentiment, I wouldn't want this to take away from intent of the original motion. Even more worrisome, we've seen how the government has tried to avoid dealing with this particular issue. I would hate to see our committee members' measured and responsible approach to this as an excuse for the minister to say there's no reason for him to appear before the committee because we have already said he is not expected to give a response until March 30.
Let's get the minister before us here. Let's have him answer those questions. Then perhaps we can put a motion on the table that would deal with this particular issue.