On this point, since there are no changes in supplementary estimates (A) with respect to whether members' allocation of time is allowed or not.... That's the first category of things I'd like to talk to.
The second category I'd like to speak to is whether the existing oath and affirmation we all take as MPs is already applicable and whether it's appropriate in any circumstances to ask an existing member of Parliament to breech their privilege by taking some additional oath. That's the second category.
The third thing is that each minister has his or her own oath that they take. There's also the standard expectation that when people are before committee they're going to come with candour.
The fourth part of the analysis on the allegations that Ms. Rempel brought earlier is as to whether there is some type of dishonesty. That's the point. Unless there is some form of dishonesty that is expected, or there is some reason to believe that someone isn't acting with candour, that's the point at which those types of motions are brought. It was quite insulting to everyone in the room and to the process and the institution to bring that type of a motion before there would be any type of allegation of impropriety at all.
Then it brings us back to a another category of things that I'd like to talk about, which is whether it's appropriate to get into the individual line items of members of Parliament when the minister has already said that he's prepared to answer the question.
I think that if I went through all those things, we wouldn't get time for the member of the NDP to ask her questions, so I will stop talking now because I know she's well prepared for the meeting.
I think in the future all members should be cognizant of the fact that we can all play these theatrical games, and no work can get done here. It's not just the opposite side that can do these foolish things.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.