Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have just a couple of brief comments. I won't belabour this.
In principle, I think the motion represents a very serious mulligan, if you will, for the committee, and one that shouldn't be approached lightly. I agree with Mr. Vellacott that the committee, in a less serious way, can amend the draft report as they see fit before adopting it. That's another sensible way of doing it without using this rare type of motion.
Speaking more specifically to the legitimacy of including the testimony, I do recall—and I stand to be corrected, which is fine, because maybe my recollection's a little foggy in the new year here—at least one witness, if not others, who actually quoted from Minister Clement's testimony in terms of taking exception to some of the things the minister had said. I think that if witnesses have quoted it, then there's an argument that it's germane. In other words, they were rearguing, if you will, the bona fides, or lack thereof, of a voluntary survey. I don't see why it's inconsistent to include it in the committee's report when the minister's testimony is actually presented in its full context as well.
That's about all I have to add on it, but I will be opposing the motion.