I think Mr. Bagnell makes two very, very relevant points. There's nothing prohibiting the letter being read into the record, with translation. There's nothing that would prevent the Auditor General from passing an opinion if she chooses. She may not pass an opinion on this particular piece of legislation outside the realms of this committee. That would be available to us as parliamentarians in a third reading debate, which we all know is probably a little bit of a long shot at this particular point, but nonetheless, there will be an opportunity for her to do that.
I'm not sure what the procedure is around auditors general commenting on bills that may have some impact prior to them being brought into force or brought into effect by either the House of Commons or the Senate. For instance, I can't recall the government having the Auditor General do a review of their budget, their prison agenda, their jets agenda, or any of their fiscal policy. If somebody can tell me what piece of financial legislation or fiscal policy they have called the Auditor General in to do a review of, I'd like to see it. But I don't think it happens.
I think the real crux here is, do we want to get to clause-by-clause? The motion speaks to postponing clause-by-clause on what I would call very spurious grounds that don't make much sense. So I call the question on the motion.