Yes, thank you.
The only point I was making on this is that I believe all parties are disciplined enough that if someone stood up and said we had unanimous consent for a motion, but there was not unanimous consent, one of the parties would have said no. That did not happen; everyone agreed to it. Everyone agreed, and this motion to extend the provisional standing orders until November 21 was agreed to by all parties. That, to me, is indisputable proof that there was an agreement, and that is my point.
For that reason, I think Mr. Hill's amendment is quite reasonable. Discussions have been initiated already. There has to be unanimous consent; if one party disagrees with any suggestion, it will revert back to the original motion of Ms. Redman. There's a deadline of October 26. I think that's reasonable.
The committee may come back and say they can't find unanimous consent, so it has to be the provisional orders that have been in effect for the last year and a half; that's the deal. I see no problem with that. I think this is a reasonable amendment, and it certainly satisfies me, because out of principle, I just cannot vote for the original motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.