I want to address two things.
First, I don't think that we should remove the June 2026 date. The partnership will be renewed in 2028. I think that the minister will be working on this soon. I think that we want to provide relevant information. We all know that corporate risk management systems no longer work and that they aren't suited to the climate change situation or to resilience in the face of it.
I would like us to adopt this motion. I don't understand why the committee isn't adopting it. We've always been clear on this point. The committee has always been the master of its own business. We could adopt it. We clearly agreed on this in the subcommittee. However, it might also be a good idea to adopt the motion during a public committee meeting.
Furthermore, it was made clear that we had other topics to propose and that, as a result, the committee would retain some flexibility in its business calendar. I don't see how adopting this resolution interferes with the flexibility of the business calendar.
I already told my colleagues that I plan to ask the committee to take another look at some issues, such as the reciprocity of standards, a topic that we studied in the previous Parliament. However, I want to do this at the appropriate time, not right now. I also want the committee to take another look at food labelling. Mr. Barlow will surely raise other issues as well, and so will Ms. Chatel and her team. As a result, the committee must decide on the flexibility of its business calendar.
I think that this motion is relevant. I'm prepared to adopt it. The motion doesn't specify when the committee will carry out the study, but it does state that the study will be done before June 2026. If the other committee members don't want to adopt it, I'll go along with them. However, I think that we should adopt it today.