I have a couple of comments.
Substantively, the allegation in the amendment moved by Mr. Fragiskatos is obviously ridiculous. I don't think that's the point of what he's doing. The committee, in its original motion, was responding to a comment that had been made by a minister of the Crown the same day that explicitly suggested that the Auditor General was making decisions in response to some kind of political pressure by the opposition. It was an outrageous claim by Minister Lebouthillier, which merited a response, and it merits a response from this committee.
That's very different from the particulars of the case that he referred to of a couple of years ago. At no point were the integrity or the independence of the Auditor General challenged by the Leader of the Opposition, who was not the Leader of the Opposition at the time when the events took place. It would have been more sincere if Mr. Fragiskatos had felt that the public accounts committee needed to engage in that discussion at the time. This is clearly a bit rich.
That said, if Mr. Desjarlais wants a compromise proposal, I'm as capable of doing math as anybody else, so I would certainly welcome Mr. Desjarlais's proposal. Procedurally, we'd have to agree by unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment and proceed with Mr. Desjarlais's amendment.
Mr. Desjarlais probably just needs to put his specific compromise language on the floor as something to talk about, because it's probably easier to discuss actual prospective language than to deal with what the possible language could be.
Those are my suggestions.