I was. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm not speaking to the last amendment made by Mr. Barrett. I just wanted to chime in with my comments as a new member of this committee. I'm all for efficiency and I'm all for moving along, but I think, colleagues, you need to appreciate that there are two new members on this committee.
Decisions were made in the previous mandate of this committee, and discussions and motions took place that I was not a part of. I understand the scope of Mr. Barrett's motion. I have no issue with whatever motions come through this committee, but I think it would be incumbent upon us to give ourselves a chance to look at them and study them.
If I heard correctly, Mr. Barrett moved to adjourn my colleague Gaudreau's motion because it merited time to be studied. There's a consideration here in terms of private individuals, private documents, and I think that it wouldn't be fair to move in such a very quick fashion without giving us the opportunity to look at it, at least from my perspective, and at least get a sense of where all this is coming from and get a little bit of the history behind this motion.
I wasn't privy to any of those conversations. I came prepared today with the motions that I wanted to present, the mandate of this committee. These are the prepared documents that I have. I have no information, no document, that would make me understand or help me in voting on at least the next motion that my colleague, Mr. Barrett, has put on the floor this morning.
For all those reasons, just as my colleague Barrett decided to adjourn debate on my colleague Gaudreau's motion, I would move that we adjourn debate on his motion and give me at least the opportunity to look at it and come prepared to the next committee meeting to take an enlightened decision on his motion.