I'm trying not to use first names, so, MP Chatel, I apologize for that.
The first original motion by MP Lawrence was the following:
That the committee reiterate its desire to hear a total of 20 hours of testimony in relation to Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act No.1, as agreed to on May 16, 2023, and notwithstanding that motion, the committee not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill until the committee hears 20 hours of witness testimony.
After much discussion the government adjourned the debate on that original motion. Then MP Lawrence proposed another alternative in the spirit of compromise and trying to find a way through that. I'll read that one, since the government members seem to have lost track of these:
That given the committee has yet to achieve its objective of obtaining 20 hours of witness testimony on Bill C-47, notwithstanding the motion adopted by this committee on May 16, the committee allocate an additional 10 hours for witness testimony and that clause by clause begin immediately following the 20th hour of witness testimony.
I think that's an eminently reasonable motion. The government then adjourned it on that motion, being unwilling to go the full 20 hours as was originally agreed to.
In the spirit, again, of compromise, MP Morantz proposed a motion that said the following.
That in relation to the motion adopted on May 16, 2023, the committee reaffirm its intention to receive a cumulative duration of 20 hours of testimony concerning Bill C-47, also known as the Budget Implementation Act, No.1. However, irrespective of the aforementioned motion, it is ordered that the committee refrain from initiating the clause-by-clause examination of the bill until the committee has completed the full 20 hours of witness testimony and that once the committee has completed 20 hours of witness testimony, clause-by-clause consideration begin on the business day following the culmination of testimony.
Again, there was more discussion on that, and again that motion was in fact voted down today.
We've proposed three compromises already to try to get back to the original intent of the motion that the government signed off on, which was for 20 hours of witness testimony before next Monday. That has led us to the motion that's on the floor now, which I proposed:
That the committee reiterate its desire to hear a total of 20 hours of testimony in relation to Bill C-47, Budget Implementation Act No.1, as agreed to on May 16, 2023, and notwithstanding that motion, the committee maintain its goal of receiving 20 hours of witness testimony but not proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of the bill until the committee hears a minimum of 19 hours of witness testimony.
Each one of those was put forward in the spirit of trying to find a path forward, which we have been stopped from doing at any time, to get back to our original desire as a committee of Parliament to actually hear 20 hours—