Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What we have before us now is an subamendment requesting a letter from the National Capital Commission, but no witness. My concern, as I expressed earlier, is that if the letter raises questions, we will be no further ahead, and I think we're putting ourselves at a disadvantage. I think the letter is of some value but certainly not the value of having someone here to take our questions. I think it's unfortunate. I hope that the answers we want from the National Capital Commission can form the basis of questions in the request we make.
If the letter sent to the National Capital Commission sets forth the concerns that have been raised here in committee with respect to their role and with respect to the questions that are evident in the representations from Mrs. Wagantall and from Ms. Blaney—the perception that this committee has some authority to delay the proceedings, the question of what's out there in the veterans community and the demand for people to be named.... There certainly wasn't such a demand when we were talking about the counselling of Veterans Affairs employees towards some veterans, that's for sure.
Those would be my concerns over the amended motion. It's watered down, and I think the only way to save it is by a pretty detailed request to the National Capital Commission. What needs to be in the letter is what we need to know. I'm very concerned that the letter is going to raise more questions than answers.