In that case, I won't discuss my motion. I'll talk about it when it's my turn.
With respect to Mr. Fergus' proposed amendment, I welcome his intention to move the process forward. I think it's valid. I'm glad that Mr. Fergus is taking this step in the right direction. As I've said many times since the filibuster began, I think it's an undemocratic process and not worthy of the office we hold. I'm glad to see that we're trying to work our way through it.
That said, I did read Mr. Fergus' proposal. Personally, I suggested that it include that the witnesses didn't appear, even though they had been summoned to appear. What Mr. Fergus is proposing is to write that they complied with the government's orders. In my opinion, it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I can live with that, as long as it is indeed the government's direction. I was alleging in my motion that the ministers instructed the witnesses not to be present—that's offended me the most. That is fine. However, with regard to the third element, we're playing with words.
The purpose of the motion is to report to the House a situation that we have experienced on an ad hoc basis in relation to this testimony. Mr. Fergus is proposing that we not report it to the House; he just wants us to put it in an appendix to the main report at the end of our study.
I can't agree to that, because it completely distorts the motion that I put forward and that is currently before the committee. For that reason alone, I don't agree with Mr. Fergus' proposal. As for the rest, I can live with the wording of points 5 and 6, as Mr. Fergus suggests. However, I cannot support the third point. It's not my motion anymore, it's completely different.