Madam Speaker, when I addressed the parliamentary secretary earlier, I was truly speaking in good faith, as are my colleagues. It was an opening and it was in this light that I was calling on my colleagues.
In my opinion, it does not matter whether we ask for 21 days or 15 days. What matters is that we recognize the principle. I am prepared to give my support too, once we have been enlightened or given information—whether in a debate or another forum—which helps ensure further reflection. I will not dig in my heels at 21 days; when I said one, two or three days, I meant that this takes time.
I thanked the House staff who assist us in committee, because they do an excellent job. I am in complete agreement, since I said it earlier, with what the member for Gatineau has just added.
The main point we must remember from what the committee members have said about the motion before us is that the time must be spent. I think a proposal of one, two, three or four days is rather inappropriate. What I wanted to point out when I rose to speak were the reasons it is important to act responsibly, transparently, with good documents in hand and to be properly equipped. Obviously, my colleagues and I said at the start in this House that there are no partisan politics on this committee. It is truly a committee where its members, all equal, have the desire to move things along.
The point I want to address is, “Let us give ourselves more time”. I have no magic answers, but what interests me is considering everything people here have to say and when we return to committee taking the time to reflect.
When I say it takes the number of days it takes, that means the time required is the time needed to do a thorough and serious study so that—if I may be permitted a pun—the public really gets its money's worth.