Like a number of you, I have a good idea of where we're headed. Amendments are already drafted and it's not a problem for me if we deal with them on Monday, a little ahead of time, so that we can have the time to prepare and be more effective. However, I want us to agree and for everyone to understand clearly—and not once we've come to the clause-by-clause consideration—that in no case will an amendment be negatived or ruled inadmissible on the ground that it has been submitted later in the process. In my view, what is ultimately important is that we have the best possible act.
Obviously, I would point out to you that witnesses will be coming to appear on Monday evening, after the time scheduled for the tabling of our amendments. It would therefore be a bit futile to have them appear if we leave ourselves no flexibility in case someone has a brilliant idea that we would like to adopt but are unable to do so. The same is true for the regulations we'll be receiving and examining in 24 hours. I want some flexibility on the following day, Tuesday, to delete or amend amendments if there is something in the minister's regulations that I don't like or have misunderstood.
Once again, I find we're conducting a somewhat philosophical discussion because the majority of you know where we're headed and 95% of our amendments are drafted and ready to be submitted. I don't want us to wind up in the clause-by-clause consideration with a debate on the fact that the amendment was submitted at 9:01 on such and such a date, so it's rejected. If everyone agrees on this subject, there's no problem.