Mr. Chair, I've taken a look at this and I've had consultation with my friend Mr. Obhrai. I understand that he was not in favour of item 4 as written, and I can understand why. I'm taking a look at items 1, 2, and 3, which we should have in hand before we get to item 4.
I would appeal to the logic of my colleagues on the other side. There is no other value in my intervention other than the fact that if we go to item 4, which is that we would be dealing with Mr. Dewar's motion on April 29, we would be dealing with it in the same vacuum that we have currently, which was what I was trying to discuss on Monday.
If we get items 1, 2, and 3, we could then have a logical, cogent discussion based on fact and be able to arrive at the highest-value conclusion on Mr. Dewar's motion.
I realize that I'm likely not going to be getting Mr. Dewar's acceptance of this motion, but I would propose, whatever the parliamentary procedure is here, that Mr. Dewar's motion be dealt with immediately upon receipt of the information from items 1, 2, and 3. In other words, if we received that information on May 5, we could deal with it immediately. If we received it on May 3, we could deal with it immediately.
This is not to delay it, but simply to say that we have to have the information before we can have a cogent and responsible discussion.