I thank Mr. Sauvageau for having made that submission and that proposed amendment. I feel it's unnecessary, because the original motion already contains the possibility of sitting in August. One thing you can't get back in life—you can get back a lot of things that are lost—is time; once it's gone, it's gone. In other words, if it turns out that we're not able to complete our work by the end of August, we can't go back to say we're going to meet in July again, because July is already gone.
I would propose we stay with the original wording, because it allows us to meet in July, and if we're done, then August is free. If we need August, then we have it as well. Frankly, the existing motion covers the considerations Mr. Sauvageau has put forward, in that it leaves open the possibility of sitting in August as well.
Finally, I haven't heard from Mr. Sauvageau why August is better than July. If we have to sacrifice one, why would it be August and not July? I know there are as many constituency events that go on in August as in July, and if there are specific holidays that come to mind in any part of the country, Quebec included, I'm sure the committee would at that time make a decision to stop our function for those holidays and then get back to work as soon as they're over.
So I do not support this amendment.