I believe that the text, with the amendment relating to the key points, is an accurate reflection of that to which we all agreed. I don't know what was so hard for the parliamentary secretary to understand. It was repeated more than once at the steering committee.
I remember coming back to the issue, at the end, to confirm that everyone was in agreement. You have to wonder about this. If every decision by a steering committee can be challenged later by one of its members, it will make things quite difficult. Steering committees would no longer be relevant.
It is important that the wording of the text be an accurate reflection of the compromise to which all members agree. I started by suggesting a comprehensive study, then some people felt that we should proceed in stages, and priorities were then listed. That was all done by consensus.
That is all I have to say. We will decide how to proceed as we go along. We already have determined the starting point, and we will see what happens later. Suggestions can be made to the committee. Our researchers must have an idea of what is required of them at least a few weeks, if not a few months in advance. We already have guidelines for the next few months. If we feel that other work has to be done later, committee members will have the opportunity to provide constructive suggestions and decide which parts are the most important.
That is essential. It's the first time that we will be following the lead of the steering committee. We cannot have a steering committee member challenge everything that the committee will be doing when it meets. I am not saying that we will always be in agreement, but when there is a consensus, that should be respected by the members of the steering committee.