I'm not sure if someone wanted to speak to the proposed amended amendment, because I see a bunch of hands coming up. I'm not sure whether Mr. Paul-Hus is saying that people want to speak to the motion, or to the proposed amendment “no later than”, or to the original. I'm not sure what we're debating.
Assuming that the debate is still on the date by which documents have to be submitted, I agree with the extension. I would go back to the same reasoning that these people have a lot of work to do to begin with. This is a big issue. There are so many border points between Canada and the United States, and not a lot of people working in this job. They have a sufficient number of things to do without their lives being made so much more complicated by having to divert those issues instead of addressing them, having to put them all on the back burner, because they have to produce documents.
I realize that for the sake of transparency they are important, but this means you're prioritizing this function of producing documents over what I think ought to be their priority, which is dealing with the issue of border closure—who's allowed to go across the border and who isn't—that justifiably, I think, takes a good deal of their time.