Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank my colleague Mr. Lauzon for tabling this proposed amendment.
I have a few points to raise.
Firstly, I fully agree with the paragraph proposing to have two ministers at a time for two hours, making a total of four ministers.
Secondly, normally, when amendments are made, there is always good co-operation and constructive discussion; Mr. Lauzon came to speak to me.
However, I have noted that in the former paragraph f, which would here become paragraph e, he has changed one word that profoundly alters the meaning of the order of business we will have to carry out. I do not know whether this was intentional on his part or not. The previous clause read “undertake a clause-by-clause examination”, but he changed it to “complete”. If that is the case, I am tabling a subamendment to restore the word “undertake” rather than “complete”. We do not know how long this will take, and we have had no negotiations or discussions on this matter. In my view, it is premature to tie our hands now regarding the end date of the clause-by-clause consideration, when we have not even begun to hear from witnesses. Therefore, by mutual agreement, we can revert to “undertake”. However, if it is the wish of Mr. Lauzon and the Liberals that the word “complete” be used, I propose a subamendment to reinstate the word “undertake”.