Madam Speaker, I am curious to know how the member can support this motion based on the fact that the preamble to it, basically everything before “that” in the motion, is misleading at best.
The truth of the matter is that although the PBO did make these comments at one point, after it was given updated information the PBO went on to state that the Government of Canada was delivering on its commitment and providing the right information.
I understand the motion, and I think that the motion in terms of involving the PBO is important and very well justified, but the problem is that the information that follows the “that” part in this motion does not paint the full picture. It is actually suggesting that the government never ended up following up on what the PBO was after, when the government did and the PBO acknowledged that.
Why would the member support the motion knowing that there is misleading information at the beginning of it?