Okay.
My point is that I'd like to invite the minister and officials to come for two hours after the announcement is made to explain what the changes are. Then, if this committee so chooses, at that point in time—maybe we'll all agree that they are incredibly great changes, or maybe we'll think they are not strong enough, or whatever the situation might be—we could look at whether it's the specific language of this motion as presented or something different, but it comes forward with the same purpose, which is to study the industrial carbon tax.
I just think it behooves us to allow the government to do ITS work and fulfill ITS promises and then for us to criticize—not to just come up and pontificate and waste this committee's time when we have so many other issues. Locking it in, whether it be for even four meetings, really reduces the ability for us to be nimble. By the time we are studying this, there may be yet another environment commissioner's report on a whole suite of other issues. I just think it behooves us to remain nimble and responsive to issues as they emerge on the international stage and on the domestic stage.
Again, hopefully there's a middle ground here if we bring the minister and officials to talk specifically about what strengthening the industrial carbon tax means; we allow her to explain what the policy is and what it's going to be; we from there revisit this issue; and then we decide how many meetings make sense, based on the changes the government has put forward.