Thank you for proposing that, Mr. Ouellette, but the issue is much too important.
The motion we want to see adopted is the one that uses the word “compel”—or “contraigne” in French. Words like “request” or “ask” have absolutely no teeth from a legal standpoint. All we would get from KPMG is a refusal to co-operate. What will the committee do then?
As for client names, we are totally prepared to exclude the names of those individuals currently involved in court challenges. But those clients who enjoy amnesty, by extension, have acknowledged their guilt. From that perspective, then, I think it's entirely appropriate for the committee to seek out individuals who can explain how the scheme was presented to them to help us understand how it works.
I appreciate the member's attempt to propose an amendment, but I cannot support it.