The reason I wanted to bring this motion forward is that last Tuesday was an absolute and total waste of the committee's time.
The witness who appeared.... And I understand that I was only elected in October 2008, but I've never sat on a committee where the briefing notes and suggested questions were leaked to the witness, and where the witness, Mr. Kessel, spent almost the entire time critiquing and in fact making a mockery of the work of the analyst of our committee. He suggested that we had inadequate information with respect to even holding the meeting. It was perhaps the most insulting exchange that I've ever seen. That would constitute requesting one meeting.
Today, with the exception of Ms. Breton-Le Goff.... And I'd like to remind the committee that the study is on the language changes at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, not CIDA. And I think it's clear. We then went back and did our homework. We got hold of the author of the magazine article, who was kind enough to produce evidence. Mr. Kessel himself is on that exchange and clearly grossly misled this committee and also mocked it when he did it.
I do believe that it merits.... To my way of thinking, despite what Ms. Brown says, yes, they may be saying it enough times, but we have evidence that changes are taking place in Foreign Affairs that their own bureaucrats are unhappy with and are trying to raise the red flag about.
I think this is a very important issue and, as such, I think requires further study, and we need witnesses who are really salient to the subject at hand.