The first proposed amendment does not pose any particular problem, as far as I'm concerned.
“Negotiated settlement”, rather than “amnesty agreement”, I'm fine with that.
The only constraint we're talking about is a minimum of three meetings. That's it.
The rest is the list of people who were identified, and we did the work of reviewing the documents that we received from KPMG. Those names are either in the documents as having already participated or are in the reports that we had from CBC/Radio Canada. It's not limited to those names. If there are other names that members of the committee want to add following the study of the documents, I have no problem with that. The motion has opened that.
The names of the four independent experts should be there as well because those people have worked on this issue closely, and it's not limited to those experts. I don't see why we should be constraining or making it a lot more vague, knowing that it's not limited to these people, but these people should be there if we want to do an exhaustive study of the scheme that was used.