Yes. You asked if the....
The problem with the amended motion is that Mr. Beech is now clarifying that this is just a friendly invitation. We want the witnesses here. That's what we're seeking in exchange for allowing the debate to terminate. We need the Auditor General here. This is a $7-billion addition to an already nearly $100-billion package. We need to hear from the Auditor General on where the previous expenditures have gone in order to vote on these new expenditures.
The Auditor General fortunately serves Parliament. The Auditor General does not just come here when he or she desires; the Auditor General comes to Parliament when Parliament requisitions him or her. We're seeking the Auditor General. We want the Auditor General here. For Conservatives to support going to a vote on the passage of this bill, we need the wording to be clear that the Auditor General will be here and testify before the bill is returned to the House of Commons. We are not prepared to support going to a vote until that is clearly worded in the motion.
We hope that arriving at that outcome is not overly time-consuming. We should all agree—this is actually a fairly easy thing to agree on—that if we're passing a piece of legislation of this magnitude, the Auditor General would come to comment. Mr. Fragiskatos has said that the Auditor General has produced reports on the predecessor programs and has cited the AG's work in order to bolster the case for the bill, so he should have no problem supporting that the AG will come, or someone very senior in the AG's office in the event that there is a health problem or that some incredible extenuating circumstance interrupts. We're not asking for something unreasonable here.
I see Mr. Beech; let's see if we can work this out.