Let's get back to the amendment. Our dispute is about reporting to the House that we're undertaking this study. I don't agree with that, and neither does my team. I'll explain why. I'm explaining why I want to remove this part of the motion and why I proposed the amendment.
We want to advance projects that we deem relevant and that the public deems relevant. Canadians placed their trust in us and reaffirmed that trust. The House has a number of projects to move forward, and it has to do so at a steadier pace. In fact, the committee's purpose is to help us make better use of members' time and enable the House of Commons to move forward on bills, not to debate the elements we've been debating since this morning.
My amendment is valid. Even though I didn't agree with the three points in the motion, I still accepted them. Why did I not agree? Mr. Lawton wasn't here and neither was Mr. Dean, but the other members were. When witnesses came and we asked them questions, I was uncomfortable. In a number of cases, not all, fortunately, but in the majority of cases, I was uncomfortable with the way they were asked questions in order to extract comments that were not theirs.
Again, what was the objective? It was to get sound bites. That's why I'm not comfortable—