That is exactly where I was going with this. The point is there are things in here that I suspect--in fact I'm positive--would not make it into a report written by the analysts. The analysts would only consult the actual testimony we heard before us.
Now, if it were the decision of this committee to say we're not ready to write the report yet because we need to have additional witnesses, such as the parliamentary secretary, it would be perfectly reasonable and well within the rights of the committee to make that decision. The motion put forward by Mr. McKay today could, for example, have said we want to call the parliamentary secretary before this committee because we believe that if he were asked he would say something like that. But perhaps he wouldn't give the answers that were desired by Mr. McKay, and that would not produce the desired result.
That's just one of 17 points, but it's hardly the only one that is problematic. That's the reason for going along. The much shorter, more elegant motion that would result if this amendment were adopted would eliminate the possibility of that sort of thing occurring. It would remove the possibility that we would be pressed into a conclusion that might not reflect where the committee ought to be going, ought to be led by the evidence, because the only standard that we ought to have--I will not suggest this is the only standard we do have--is to be led by the evidence towards the finding that gathers the truth as well as we can find it, and then writes conclusions and recommendations based upon what the truth is. That is not where we are led when we advise the analysts or instruct them to come to a conclusion.
This amendment simply returns us to the normal practices that are carried on by every committee, that have been carried on by this committee ever since I have been on it. I think--although I stand to be corrected--I'm now the senior member on this committee in terms of length of service. I've never seen it do anything like this. This is the senior committee in the House of Commons. I'll add that I've served on a number of other committees. I've never seen any of them do this.
I have to leave here early today, unfortunately, because I'm chairing a subcommittee on human rights, and that's never been the way that subcommittee has behaved either. I've been a witness at committees both here and in the Ontario Legislature, and I've never seen them behave that way.