I was a little puzzled in talking to our colleague Tony last week in the elevator, and I think he did concede that this could be the other approach. We would have not wasted all the time that we did if we had just simply got into it. If you want to extract as we go along the way, we do those votes and you excise parts or portions of it. You remove it, and we could be well on the way through the report already.
That would have been another approach, rather than dealing with this rather larger generic motion in respect to it. If this would waste too much more time, then I would certainly press back to that particular method or manner of actually getting into the report and excising it as we go along the way.
The other thing in respect to what my colleague Mr. Savagementioned is that as I recall the committee report--I don't have it before me right now--it's actually a reference. It's noted as to where that particular quote was from, and from what committee. Although I might partly concede that we colour the report by all of that, it's very clear that we're either citing testimony that was heard here in our own hearings or that was cited and quoted elsewhere, so you can make the distinction pretty obvious in that way.
My contention would be that it's water under the bridge, in part, but if this extends at any great length, I would suggest that we get right into it, and as we go point by point or recommendation by recommendation, we excise those parts that people are not happy with. The net effect would be the same as moving this kind of motion that we have here.