With this amendment my concern is that introducing a dissenting report on a report that's already been tabled is really effectively opening this study again. I think we're looking for the right way forward. I suggested a letter because I think we would get a faster response, or we could ask for a faster response. Madame Pauzé makes a good point that the minister doesn't have to wait 120 days and could give us a faster response, which gives some flexibility. If he needs the time he can use the time, but if he can do it faster it's better for us as a committee to get a response because there was good work done there.
I'm concerned that the amendment on the table would be counter to the way reports are normally handled. They're either tabled, or else, if you're going to do a dissenting report, you have to open up the study again so that we can see what's changed in the meantime. I wouldn't be supporting a dissenting report, but I would definitely support retabling the report as it is.