If I could just clarify my position, my proposal or amendment is neither meant to be a stalling tactic nor designed in such a way as to have the motion on the table set aside.
I support this motion. There have already been enough delays on this issue. Matters have been up in the air for several years. I think we can easily vote in favour of the main motion and I invite my Conservative party colleagues to do just that.
I simply thought that we could take advantage of the situation, go one step further and examine other cases. Should we be looking at other situations to understand what's really happening here? For instance, I'm thinking about the St. Lawrence with which I'm more familiar. I think we need to look at other cases.
Let me say again that I'm in favour of the main motion. We could have another discussion about the possibility of doing an in-depth study, or not, or talk about the study's terms of reference, and so forth. I don't have a problem with that. To facilitate matters and for the sake of expediency, I'm willing to withdraw my amendment. In any event, I don't think I'll have to do that because my amendment is not in order.
The Chair is therefore at liberty to call for debate on the main motion, since my amendment is out of order.