What Ms. McLeod is saying, basically, is that we all knew this was coming.
We just learned at 3:30 this afternoon, through the motion that was served, that we would not be doing the clause-by-clause study on November 29; we would be doing it on November 21, which is one day after the deadline for amendments, which we also only learned about this afternoon.
Basically, you're asking us to vote on a timeline that was never discussed and to replace a timeline that was discussed and agreed upon by everybody. This is why I'm saying that we should take that part and discuss it. That's why I'm suggesting that the subcommittee could meet tomorrow. The subcommittee can actually bring its recommendation tomorrow. There's not much time lost. I don't know why that would be a problem. We can move the rest.
It's a bit unfair to say—well, it's very unfair—that we all knew this was coming. We just got the timeline suggested by the government this afternoon at 3:30. This is the part we have a problem with. We'd like to have a bit more time to discuss it. As for the rest, we can actually vote on it right away. I can assure you that the rest can be discussed and adopted by tomorrow, so there won't be much time lost. We're talking about something that's going to happen three weeks from now.