Let's make it perfectly clear. Personally, without question, I prefer option D. But knowing how the opposition appears to be headed towards option A, I'm saying, if nothing else, as a friendly suggestion to try to actually make it look as though this committee is relevant, instead of just rubber-stamping a political motion brought forward by the opposition, I was suggesting that we could live with option B if you added the line I put in to actually strengthen it, to give the finance committee the ability to go even further and call witnesses to try to satisfy the committee's original request.
I'm not suggesting that I think option B is the best one there and accurately reflects what happens, because it talks to the fact that in the opinion of the committee the government has not given sufficient information, and I disagree with that. I believe that we have, and in my opinion we have fully complied. I'm just saying that option B is better than option A, because option A is such a blatant political statement, and it has nothing in it that even comes close to asking for further information to deal with the finance committee's requests. That's why I'm suggesting that option B would be something we could support if we strengthened it, but it's clearly not my option.
I believe that we, as a government, have fully complied with all of the requests of the committee, and I would certainly think that option D is the best of the four.