Mr. Chair, I'm against the amendment.
I'm not challenging the substance of the motion, but rather its status as an amendment to the initial motion, with which you were in agreement. I would vote against the amendment and for the motion as moved.
The motion is broad and doesn't blame anyone. It proposes a study on housing, homelessness and the tent cities. In the context of this housing study, homelessness is an extremely serious issue in Canada and Quebec. It's unheard of. The study would require at least eight meetings. It would determine whether we have been doing enough to support co-operatives, and other related issues.
It's an open motion, and accordingly not restrictive. I still believe that in view of the restrictive wording in the amendment, a motion that is in order could be introduced.
As the committee has decided otherwise, I will vote against the amendment and for the original motion.