However, Mr. Siksay would agree that what happened at the last meeting was a discussion regarding the agenda, which is the essence of the committee. One minute before break somebody made a motion, and it passed without any discussion about the substantive part of it, without any input from any of us as to whether we agreed or disagreed or had some input, and we had a steering committee composed of a very small group.
To suggest that as a committee we can't revisit it now.... I thought the understanding when we left was let's pass this now, but we can revisit it later if we have some issues with it. At least that's how I understood it. I didn't have an opportunity to even speak to the motion, because everything was closing down.
I say this: It's not so much the subject matter of the agenda that has significant problems, but there are areas that need to be discussed. If we take the approach that we can't have input on how we organize ourselves or add or supplement what you've put together in that motion, what have we done?
If it takes a motion to revisit it, then I would move that we revisit it in the proper fashion where there's give and take and discussion. I don't mind losing on the motion, and I've done that often enough, but I do mind not having the opportunity to speak to it and have my views put forward so somebody can hear them and agree or disagree with them. To suggest that what happened at the last meeting was any kind of discussion at all is not so. It happened on the spur of the moment.
To be fair, this committee should revisit the agenda as a whole and this item as well. Obviously, if we decide we're going to Kingston, that's what we're going to do and we'll need the money to do it, and you'll have my agreement that it should be paid for. But I think it should be dealt with in the context of the whole agenda. Obviously, there are some holes in it.
It's a very sketchy rough particular document and it needs to have some debate. I would ask the committee to reconsider putting this thing to a vote now. I don't disagree with the essence or the content of this particular motion, but just the way it's coming forward. In the end, I may be able to support it, but only after we've had the opportunity to bring this thing back.