Madam Chair, I really think I've made my point on this. I really think we are abusing a minister and our privilege. I would certainly lose a bit of respect for common decency when we obviously have had every question answered fully by this minister every time he's been here and left wanting. So to carry on on another witch hunt now, simply for partisan purposes due to a potential election again, once again gets away from doing what we have to do as a committee.
If we need evaluation of Public Works officials, bring them in. That's our job. Let us investigate. We already asked this minister, time and again, on this same subject. How many times do you want him back--every other day here? Ministers have a lot of other serious responsibilities too, and never once has the minister said he would not appear. He has always been a willing attendant at any of these meetings here. So I just ask our committee members to use a little discretion, a little intelligence, a little compassion, a little capability, and a bit of maturity in just simply dropping the second paragraph.
Certainly we as a government have no regret and/or no objection to the intent of Madame Bourgeois' motion on discussing the issue. That's why I would suggest that friendly amendment. I think that would make sense at this time.