Yes.
What I'm talking about is that those 30 days could also be used to discuss another program that we know needs overhauling. We've all had concerns expressed about it. That is the PNP.
That program works really well in some provinces, and we could learn a lot from that. If we had those 30 days not being taken away from this committee, we could use that time well. We could actually use it to address issues that would make a difference for many, many Canadians.
So Chair, I could sit here and give you a litany of issues. I'm sure I may think of others, and I'm sure I will come back to that point later, when other ideas do occur to me.
At this point, however, what I want to say is that when we debate a motion...and that is what we're here to do, to debate the whole motion that is before us. We've already had all kinds of limitations ruled by the chair. The chair has done that. But I really do appreciate and would urge the chair to continue to give some leeway.
If we don't actually discuss the impact of the extension, as well as the reasons for an extension, I believe we will not have a fulsome debate and it will be a very stilted debate. Therefore, I want to get to what the reasons are for the extension.
One reason, it says in here, is to expand the scope, but I want to go beyond that and question that—