Thank you, Chair.
On the subamendment, I think I am in agreement with what Rob is saying. I have always felt that Mr. Bergeron has wanted us to try to come to compromises on a lot of things we do. I think that is what a committee like this is about. I'm in agreement that he's coming up with a compromise; however, I still feel there are some pieces in this that are, as Rob said, presumptive on the part of the mover, the person who brought in the motion originally. [Technical difficulty—Editor] evidence. For me, evidence is a very important thing. I like the idea that Mr. Bergeron is suggesting, that we bring in the minister. I might want to add Minister Anand to that as well so that we have the person who is procuring vaccines also able to give us some answers.
I think I like the intent of Mr. Bergeron's amendment. I like the idea that he's trying to find a way to do this. As I said before, I won't go back into what is a filibuster or what isn't; I just was not filibustering. I was really concerned about disinformation. There are a couple of pieces in this that are still not evidence-based statements. I would like to see those couple of pieces taken out.
I may like to suggest, if Mr. Bergeron is interested, that we add Minister Anand to the list of ministers appearing before us. Clarity, for me, is what the name of the game should be about.
That's about it.