I'm not sure what the rationale is for a motion, but I know that the witnesses, when asked by me for exactly the same information, committed to providing it to the committee. I feel that there's a bit of a breakdown here in terms of what happened at this committee and that maybe members were too busy writing a motion to pay attention to the testimony that was given.
The witnesses here, Ms. Hamel in particular, committed to providing this information, all of which is similar to the motion. I'm not sure why a motion is needed to put this in writing. We've already said that the chair offered to write a letter requesting that information. We also clarified that on the record, and Ms. Hamel clearly committed to providing that information to the committee.
I don't know what the rationale is for using the committee's time for a motion when the witnesses have already committed to providing the information that was requested. It just seems like a bit of a roundabout here. I'm not sure why the witnesses' testimony isn't satisfactory enough for the members and why their commitment to providing documents is not sufficient. Why would that require a motion? I'm struggling to find and to understand the rationale for the need for a motion when witnesses voluntarily said that they would provide the information.
If Mr. Perkins wants to clarify that on the record, that's great, but—