Mr. Longfield's motion could consist simply of removing all the words in the initial motion after the word “That” and replacing them with the wording suggested by Mr. Longfield.
I'd like to hear my colleagues' opinion about the amendment, but I'd first like to briefly return to a number comments I heard last week.
I just want to say that when we have discussions on subjects like these, it's neither partisan nor non-partisan. I was unfortunately criticized for having put this motion forward in a partisan manner, when it's intent was really to further clarify things for committee members from all parties. I think that was the laudable goal.
Once again, unanimity on the committee is not essential for every one of our decisions. The committee takes pride in producing unanimous reports. I'd like to reiterate this because we can't always agree on everything that is said here.
It's therefore important to point out that my comments were intended simply to provide further clarification for the committee. I believe that the motion before us, and the amendments put forward by Mr. Longfield, will enable everyone to have the answers we need to move forward and come up with what I trust will be a unanimous report from the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I have a question for Mr. Longfield. Why should we have to wait until May 27 to obtain the documents?
In my initial motion, I had asked that we be able to obtain the documents very soon, so that we could move forward more quickly. I'd like Mr. Longfield to explain why he chose May 27 as the date for receiving all the documents.