I would agree with Mr. Proulx, essentially. That is a more accurate reflection of what transpired.
I would add, when you say “It was further noted that the information binder placed before the committee by the government inadequately and insufficiently replied to the documents that Parliament had requested”, that's not simply a reflection of the majority of the members of the committee; that was a clear reflection of the analysis of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in his report to this committee. Having it worded as it was worded originally actually does reflect both the opinion of the majority of the committee and the evidence put before the committee by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That fortifies it, and if we were to weaken or dilute that, it would not reflect what the Parliamentary Budget Officer's evidence to this committee reflected.