I'm obviously going to support the amendment. The reason, as Mr. Pallister said, is that although I know where you're headed with the motion and its intent and I don't have a big problem with it--although I do question its necessity as well--to name everything in there is almost being presumptuous that there's a problem in there. We don't have to have those particular ones in the motion, whether others have been missed or whatever, and in no way does not having them in the motion keep us from studying those at committee here. We can still call witnesses, but to have it actually in the motion is unnecessary.
On November 22nd, 2007. See this statement in context.