I'll just remind members that we can only have one motion on the floor at a time, but there can be an amendment and a subamendment to a current motion. For instance, the Martin motion has an amendment and there could be a subamendment, but I think the member is suggesting a new motion. We wouldn't be able to entertain moving that at this time until the Pat Martin motion is disposed of; just so it's understood.
Members, I really need to know this. Does anyone have a copy of the minister's discussion paper that he referred to in both of his letters? Has anybody read it? Has anybody ever seen it? Does it exist?
I raise that a bit facetiously because the researchers and the clerk have been scouring, and we have no evidence of any kind of recommendations or discussion paper that we can bring to the committee for its interest.
That concerns me. There was no title to this apparent discussion paper and no date other than the year, but it may be relevant to what we're discussing. I simply raise that it was referred to in both his letters, his original response as well as in this supplementary response.
I hope I don't have to explain to committee members or justify why I sent him the blues of Mr. Marleau's appearance and asked if he had any further comments, and he responded. That was not directed to me. The chair took that as a chair's decision, as a courtesy in case there was any clarifying information, and he has some. So that's how that happened, if members are interested.
Mr. Siksay, please.