Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to come back to the point raised by my colleague Ms. Koutrakis. Meetings with stakeholders will indeed take place in the coming weeks. I think the government certainly wants to see this dealt with in a way that benefits workers and has made that message very clear.
I agree with Mrs. Gill about the importance of looking at the issue that has been raised. We agree with the need for the study, but we're wondering about two things. First of all, there's the question of timing, given that discussions are ongoing and there won't be a report released until early next year.
What is the best time to do this study?
What is the scope of the study? This is a really important issue, and I think it merits a deep dive. It merits a full, comprehensive study, and not one that is done as a way to, as my colleague said, embarrass the government. I think Canadians deserve better than that, and I think Canadian workers deserve better than that.
I know we're discussing the amendment right now, but I would like to go back to the initial discussion we had at the last committee meeting—I'm not sure if I can refer to it. This is a very large motion that actually includes four things. If it goes forward, it prevents us from prioritizing. It actually prioritizes for the committee the studies that would be going forward and the order in which they would be going forward. In the same way that we want to do one amendment at a time, I would also think that we would want to discuss one of these things at a time so that we're able to look at them each in their own validity.
That is my point of view, and I wanted to share it with the committee.