Thank you, Mr. Chair.
With respect to the original point of order, I want to say that there's no hierarchy of speakers. We have associate members who follow the work of this committee. To diminish someone's contribution because they're an associate member, as opposed to a member who is not an associate member.... I wonder if we can get clarity from the clerk or the chair that anybody who's subbed in and is speaking has the full rights to make arguments. It's not germane to how their point is understood whether or not they're a regular member or an associate member.
On the other issue, with respect to the content of the subamendment, it deals with the question of completion of studies versus non-completion of studies. Surely, the nature of those studies that would or would not be completed is very much on the point of completion of studies or not. This is the core subject matter, so it's obvious that it needs to be part of the discussion.