I wouldn't say it's a pattern, but it has happened.
Of course, there was the explosive testimony of one witness who appeared before the House of Commons for failure to provide information. It does happen, but it's usually something that is resolved with some push-and-pull, and ultimately, if a motion is passed, the information comes quickly. I don't think we've had to call witnesses in to explain why they haven't provided information, with the exception of that one, but I don't think that was even at this committee. It's more something....
This motion is here, I think, as a fail-safe measure, if you like. It signals to everyone who has agreed to provide information to the committee that they will do so and be bound to do so. This is generally understood, which is why I'm not too fussed by this motion one way or the other.
Ultimately, if we feel the information provided is not sufficient—even if they give us information and we don't think it's correct—we can still call them in. We can still request more information. I think this is just a signal to everyone at the outset what our powers are. Whether this motion passes or not, we still retain them.
Go ahead, Mr. Osborne.