Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to pick up on a number of things, and Mr. Breton's amendment in particular.
First, we have been told that two hours of debate would not be enough. If the committee wishes, the meeting could be extended. On March 21, we do not have to have a two-hour meeting; it could be four hours long. We could also have one on March 19, since we will all be in Ottawa that day.
We cannot drag out the study of this issue by having a series of meetings over three or four weeks. We want to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible. It would be better to have a meeting in the evening of March 19. Monday nights are not usually very busy. We could have a four-hour meeting on March 19. That would give us the time to hear from many of the witnesses suggested by all the parties.
If Mr. Breton is agreeable to this proposal, that would be ideal. It would probably be easier to have a long meeting on March 19 than on March 21. It is usually easier for everyone to make time on a Monday night. I propose that we have a four-hour meeting. We could invite everyone on our witness list. We would have enough time to welcome them all. At the same time, we would be showing that this is urgent. The goal is not to talk about it for four weeks, but rather to resolve the problem quickly.
If Mr. Breton had not proposed this amendment to the motion, I would have suggested a day-long meeting next week in order to welcome all the witnesses. On the other hand, I would go along with a meeting next week, provided that it is four hours long. That would be a solution.
Madam Clerk, could we do that?