Yes. I understand Mr. Trottier's motion certainly would be in order either way, but I'm talking about other ideas around the table. We were hoping that these planning meetings could be fairly free and open, blue-sky brainstorming about things we might want to do.
Obviously, Mr. Trottier's motion is what's on the floor.
I want to say that this is the kind of substantive study I was looking forward to this committee undertaking and sinking our teeth into. I think it has long-term value as something, if done properly and well, we could be proud of, that would actually make a meaningful mark as we move forward on the whole pluralistic notion of open government, open data, access to information, not in the ATIP sense but in the sense of individuals' and businesses' ability to obtain the type of information they need and eliminate red tape and have a speedy porthole to the government high-value information, as you've put it.
I think we could welcome this kind of a study. It would take time to do it properly. I would hope it wouldn't be one of these things we would do for two or three meetings and then have a report tabled on our behalf. We want input into this report and the recommendations from it. I'll serve notice for that point right now.
We've been to other committees recently where they hear 50 witnesses, the committee writes 100 recommendations, and then the government comes in and says, “Here's the report that we're going to pass. Don't waste your time with the other recommendations because none of them is going to pass and this is the report you're going to get.”
If that's the plan here, then we don't want anything to do with it. However, if you want meaningful input and meaningful participation into a report that could have a lot of value, then we would embrace that.