Thank you, Madam Chair.
Actually, there are two conversations. In the beginning, before Mr. Redekopp moved his motion, we were talking about the calendar and the ministers who should come before the committee. I am first going to talk about the motion and the amendment that were proposed by the Conservatives.
I agree with everything my colleague Ms. Rempel Garner said about the importance of these documents. For us as parliamentarians, it is important to know that we are working for the people who elected us, the taxpayers, those who give 50% of their taxes to Ottawa. In any case, Quebeckers do.
When she spoke, my colleague asked how we would get the documents if we, as parliamentarians, did not ask for them. However, parliamentarians have already requested these documents from the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. A motion was proposed in that committee that is a carbon copy of the one we are talking about right now, with the exception of Ms. Rempel Garner's amendment.
I think this motion is important, but parliamentarians have already tackled this issue in another committee. I would not want us to do the same work twice. I understand that it is important for our committee to have access to these documents, but, as they will be produced for another committee, we will have access to them in some way.
On the other hand, if we are not satisfied with what happens in the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, then the Conservative motion will become very important, and we can propose it again. At that point, we can revisit our motion.
So I would suggest to the committee that we keep this motion alive by adjourning debate on it, in case we really need to vote on the motion. According to what I am hearing today, if we vote on this motion right away, it may be defeated. I want to keep it alive until we know the outcome of the work on the same motion that has already been started by the parliamentarians who sit on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I repeat: the wording is exactly the same. If we are not satisfied with the result, at least the motion will still be alive. It will still be in our binder and, having adjourned debate on it, we will be able to proceed. So I move to adjourn debate on the amendment and the motion that have been proposed.
Now, Madam Chair, can I go back to the discussion we had on Afghanistan? We had not finished it, according to the schedule. Maybe the clerk can tell me. Since I have the floor, logically, I should be able to get back to it.