Mr. Chair, I'm going to start with the comments from Mr. Christopherson. I'm going to put it on the record that to some degree, I regret giving you and the members of the opposition as much discretion as you had on the line of questioning with respect to Madam Labelle. As I said, I could have objected, and I chose not to at the time.
The point I want to make, Mr. Christopherson, is that at the end of the day, we are prescribed by the current Standing Orders with respect to the conduct of this committee in respect to examining the qualifications and competency of a prospective appointee. These are not Standing Orders that I made up. These are Standing Orders that are the current rules of procedure that govern what this committee can do.
I simply want to put that on the record. If we stay within the confines of the Standing Orders that all of us inherit.... If you don't like it, Mr. Christopherson, you have a right to subsequently propose to make the appropriate changes as we go through our processes of reviewing our Standing Orders, but my point is that at the present time we are simply conducting the business we are prescribed to do under the current Standing Orders.
With respect to the substantive motion that has been put forth by Mr. Reid, my personal view at the end of the day is that the questions you are ultimately concerned about, the government is more than transparent in granting you the opportunity to have the minister and his officials appear before this committee on March 10 to answer those particular questions.
As a result, from my perspective we will not be supporting—at least I certainly will not be supporting—this particular motion. You can ask the minister and her officials any questions you wish with respect to your concerns about the process, but at this time, we are charged solely with dealing with competency and qualifications. That is our mandate, and as a result we will not—at least I certainly will not—be supporting the motion.