Thanks, Madam Chair.
I don't actually understand the filibuster. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Bittle. He's somebody who contributes a lot to this committee and brings a lot of wisdom and expertise, but in this particular context, I don't understand delaying the vote. I too am reluctant about the subamendment and the six meetings. I'd like to go beyond that. I think that is a discussion we need to have amongst all the parties.
Again, regarding the principal motion that Mr. Champoux has moved forward, it makes sense to bring the minister and the officials back. We need to touch base with them in any event. I think it is wise for us to do that as part of the broader study.
On reporting it to the House, that isn't, as I see it, a comprehensive report. I see that as something that allows the House to take knowledge of what the committee is doing. There is a lot of interest in the work we are doing, not only from the public but also from other parliamentarians and even other committees. I think touching base makes sense. I think that is our responsibility.
Of course, Mr. Bittle is the master of his own destiny, but if could, I would suggest that if he withdrew the subamendment, we could vote on the principal amendment. I do think that would give us time to go in camera for 15 minutes or so, start the discussions around the broader study and the work that we need to do in February, March and April, potentially, of next year, as well as touch on the private members' legislation that we have received as a committee.
Thank you.