I don't know whether it's because I'm tired, but I do not understand Mrs. Church's remarks at all. I just want to clarify things, because we need to be able to focus our comments.
I understand from her remarks that the motion and the subamendment to the main motion would mean we would not want to hear from the Ethics Commissioner, even though, from the outset, he has been one of the three parties we want to hear from. This is just a subamendment intended to clarify the second point. Rather than deleting this point entirely, as Mr. Saini wanted, and rather than retaining the wording of the second point of the original motion, which provided for the appearance of Alto executives and the CEO, Mr. Hardy's subamendment aimed to clarify the second point so that only the CEO would be invited to appear. Thus, no other Alto representative would be called to testify. The bill cannot therefore be delayed by our remarks.
I don't understand where Mrs. Church is going with this. I don't understand how she can claim we're opposed to hearing from the Ethics Commissioner.
I wonder if, deep down, she's debating the motion that was rejected without any mention of the subamendment.