It's not my intent to touch a nerve, and now I'm being interrupted by my colleague. I don't want to have to ask you, Mr. Chair, to call him to order. That's not what I'm about. If I've touched a nerve, I apologize. In fact, I've worked for many years with the member opposite and enjoy the back-and-forth we've often had, but I'll leave that aside.
I was pointing out the fact that, in question period today, things were especially heated. I hope we don't see the same thing happen at committees. One thing that could take us down that path, Mr. Chair, is—with all due respect to him—motions like the one that has been put forward by Mr. Genuis. It is something quite extraordinary.
There's the issue of this committee's mandate, which we have explored. I have spoken about it—the work we do here. There's the issue of the need to remain non-partisan. One thing I have not put on the table, which I am putting on the table now, is the direction this committee could go in if we were to pursue a motion like this. I think it would challenge the work ahead. Yes, we only have a few weeks here, but I'm thinking about the fall. I'm thinking about the months to follow. Once a committee sets a precedent like this, it's a poisoned chalice. It influences, in the most negative fashion, everything that follows.
I would ask my colleagues—not just Mr. Genuis but all colleagues—what exactly is the motivation here? Is the motivation to score political points, as it were? If that's the motivation, you can do it in the House of Commons, if you wish. At the public accounts committee, we are obligated to look at issues in a serious way and reach consensus as much as possible.
On that point, let me simply speak, in a very positive way, about what Mr. Desjarlais has brought to the table, because he is always looking to find compromise. He's always looking to, as much as possible, reach a point, in terms of the committee's opinion, where we emerge and can put forward, if not a unanimous point of view, certainly one based on consensus. I've never understood “consensus” to mean “unanimity”. Either way, we have a motion here that is proving to be extremely divisive.
I also ask us to consider what our constituents would want, when faced with a choice between a decision to look at, for example, the situation in our prisons—something this committee has explored in detail—and whether or not we will further examine the plight and position of indigenous peoples on reserve, the drinking water situation and boil water advisories. Yes, there's been enormous positive movement on that file, but there are still lingering challenges that exist, to put it mildly. We could look at all of those things.
Instead, we are now caught in a debate, one with which our side is prepared to continue because we think it's so important, for all the points already mentioned. We're caught in a debate that would prevent us from going forward and doing the serious work with which this committee is tasked. A summons is not something that is going to allow this committee to work in the direction it always has, or almost always has. A summons is going to take us back. I wonder whether there has been thought given, among members, to any kind of compromise—some kind of compromise that would lessen the heavy-handed nature of the motion and what it ultimately seeks to put forward.
I know other members have something to say, and I don't want to take up their privilege to do so, Mr. Chair. I have further thoughts, and I'm going to ask to be added to the speaking list once more. I see your pen moving. I hope you're writing my name. That's perfect.
That time, he saw me.