Mr. Chair, I can assure you that I didn't vote against adjournment because I was having too much fun, obviously. I voted against the motion because I think that if we end the meeting now, we'll start talking about it again the next time. In other words, we won't be done with it. What I'm about to say is a bit ironic, but I don't think we have a better use of our time for the next 15 minutes.
Since everyone is blocked at one point or another, myself and others, voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, we are going to have to vote on amendments and subamendments to the motion. We'll ask ourselves who’s to blame, and say that the Conservatives and the minister did this or that.
I'd like to thank my colleague Ms. Rempel Garner for her reading. I'll take her at her word, of course. I think that in this case, the source of the problem is that the minister publicly meddled in the committee's affairs and that what he said was not in line with the committee's conversations.
Personally, I would make the following suggestion. In fact, I talked about it informally with Mr. Perkins.
Rather than adopt this motion and spend two hours discussing the amendments and subamendments, I propose that we drop the motion and ask the clerk to write a letter to the minister urging him to be more careful in his public statements about the committee's work.