Thank you, Madam Chair.
It might help to get us all the same page, because I think there's a [Technical difficulty—Editor] period and that was one that I believe was drafted by his party with the House.
Then, when the CEO appeared the other day, the CEO brought forward a package of amendments that would accomplish a similar thing. I think Monsieur Therrien indicated earlier that he just felt that, legislatively, it was a more complete package.
I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that this package includes three separate amendments: one for clause 3, one for clause 4 and one for clause 5. They operate together in order to comprehensively change the legislation to enact a two-day Saturday and Sunday voting period. I think part of what happened was that the clerk's initial advice, although true, was only partially true. It does amend clause 4, but not only clause 4. It also amends clauses 3 and 5.
If it's the will of the committee, Madam Chair, I would just propose that we dispense with all of those at the same time as a combined vote, because either the committee is going to be on board with this or it won't be. Then we won't have to worry about Monsieur Therrien and the committee returning to this question in each of the subsequent clauses and perhaps forgetting and causing more confusion.
I would propose that we deal with the pack of amendments to establish the two-day voting period just moved by Monsieur Therrien as one complete package, as opposed to dealing with the three separate amendments in succession.
Perhaps we could get a decision on that.
Then I would like to provide some remarks on the substantive issue in that amendment, but perhaps we could decide the procedural question first.