Unless I'm mistaken, we're talking about the subamendment.
My comments were along the same lines as the remarks made by the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
I would like my colleague, the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent, to provide some clarification. I'm not a committee member, so I'm not asking for my own benefit. I find it difficult to see how the committee can both continue the member for Repentigny's study and carry out the Standing Order 106(4) study. It's important to specify how this will be done.
In principle, I don't have any objections. However, I find that these two studies are difficult to juggle unless you have the gift of ubiquity.