Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In light of the discussions, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the terms that had been agreed to back in July seem to have been in dire contradiction with the amendment my colleague put on the table for us to decide. I'm going to reiterate that it's important that we have a good idea of what has transpired in the past so that we can make decisions that are clear and lucid. It is in no way to stifle the work of this committee; it's to get to work and do the due diligence in our work.
That was the point of my intervention before, and I'm reiterating for the same arguments and not an adjournment of the motion, because I understood that we voted on it. Because of the new information that was read by my colleague Mrs. Shanahan, I think you can appreciate that we, as new members of this committee, are entitled to have all the necessary information so that we can take our responsibilities and make decisions that are clear.
I'm going to propose once again that we adjourn debate on this motion. I understand that what my colleague is also.... In reading very quickly the motion, I see there are a lot of similarities between his motion and my colleague Gaudreau's motion with regard to setting up a new committee. Let us take the time to look at this closely and carefully, so that we can take the proper decision. It is in no way to stifle or impede a colleague from putting forward a motion and not deciding on it. It's to give us an opportunity to examine it properly.
I want to make one more comment in terms of taking our oath of office to not disclose the information that we receive. It is my understanding that staff members do not have that same obligation to take an oath of office. For all those reasons, I'm not prepared to vote on this, or at least not to vote yes on it.