My apologies for just trying to seek clarification. I know some of our colleagues are perhaps getting a little antsy with the elongated debate, but obviously we take our motions and the work we do in our committee very seriously to ensure we're doing it properly.
I have a couple of questions around clarification. When we remove the word “unduly” to say that the House is satisfied that the privacy of Canadians will not be unduly affected, are we talking about specifically the company that will receive this RFP, or are we talking about, in general, all privacy concerns that Canadians may have?
Mr. Chair, I think you did a really good job clarifying the issues about recommendations and reporting back to the House. My understanding is that the way Mr. Fergus drafted his amendment, it made it very clear what was expected of the committee, whether we're satisfied or not satisfied.
When we start talking about recommendations, for me after my six years here in the House—compared to many more tenured and more senior folks in our Parliament—it seems that when we're talking about recommendations, we're also talking about a report, a study, which is not mentioned at all in this motion.
Please forgive me for being a bit confused. I'm just trying to find some clarity as to what exactly we're trying to do with this motion, and to narrow the scope of it a bit, because I find the language to be a little on the vague side.