I'm not sure where we're at, but it seems that, with what the clerk read out and what Mr. Chambers just mentioned.... I thought we were moving towards consensus in terms of having an invite to the DPM, which is fine. One hour for the DPM and one hour for officials would perhaps be fine. I think it's quite reasonable to say “two weeks”. I think Mr. Ste-Marie rightly said “two sitting weeks”. I'm agreeable to that. I think those are very reasonable friendly amendments. I think, effectively, Mr. Ste-Marie, that that is three weeks, is it not? I don't know. I'd have to look at the sitting calendar to see whether there's an actual break week that early after we come back.
Anyway, it seemed as if we were achieving consensus on that. I think Mr. Chambers is now suggesting three weeks and the Conservatives would agree to three weeks to start clause-by-clause after the bill is reported to the committee. If that's the new debate we're having, we can talk about it, but I prefer the two-week period. I think that's reasonable—“two sitting weeks”.