Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to thank the member, who does not disapprove of our motion, if I understood the interpreters correctly. If he does not disapprove, then I think he approves. I thank him.
I also think that he must make a distinction between the public accounts committee and a special committee studying all federal spending and overlap.
In talking about the public accounts committee, we must look at what it is and what it does. The committee's mandate is not to study all the spending of all departments, nor all programs or the overlap between federal and provincial programs. We want to keep the role of the public accounts committee as it is. Since this morning, we have heard that answer or that statement from the other side of the House. Before thinking of broadening the public accounts committee, they should have looked at what it is and what it does. They would have clearly seen that it is not on the public accounts committee that we have to examine federal government spending item by item or to consider overlapping programs. Let us keep the public accounts committee as it is and set up a special committee.
I will again quote the red book or remind hon. members opposite that they promised it in their red book and we are giving them a chance to keep their promise. Instead of being recalcitrant to our requests, they should thank us. That is what I wanted to say.