That's correct, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me the floor.
I would just say that to the question of relevance and being in order, I believe that it certainly is, and you related it to the Standing Orders.
I won't refer to or start debate on the second motion that is going to be debated today, but I'll allude to the fact that, as we're reminded often, we can't force the Auditor General, for an example, to undertake a study on something. However, we could recommend and have our voices heard.
I think the motion that's before us is in order. Precedence, as you alluded to earlier, is not a reason for ruling something in or out. We, as a committee, have the opportunity to look at and examine and set our agenda on the work we want to do.
Frankly, I'll have some constructive comments during the debate on the motion itself, but is it common practice? No. However, it does not rule out, in terms of being within our means and abilities to do so, having witnesses come to speak to this issue, to provide public testimony—I say this respectful of the independence of the Auditor General—as to perhaps why this issue needs to be studied or reviewed.
I will note respectfully, without getting into debate, that over the course of the last couple of weeks, in the public discourse, we've seen the Governor General respond. We've seen it batted over to defence. We've seen it in foreign affairs. Everybody seems to be having this...so having officials able to speak to it could provide some background or public testimony as to perhaps why the Auditor General or our committee would feel that this needs to be further talked about.
I think it's within scope and reasonable to do so. We can get to debating the merits of it, and perhaps some friendly amendments and other things that can strengthen the quality of the motion before us.