I'll just say this: From what I heard from the chair, he was basically saying, yes, we're passing a motion, or the government is tabling an amendment to my motion, to say there will be three meetings for each section, even though there's every likelihood that it will be more than three meetings. From that perspective, I don't know why we just don't solidify it and say four meetings. I know I already moved the subamendment and it was defeated, which actually addresses Mr. Tilson's concern so that we can actually plan as opposed to willy-nilly trying to figure out, well, this might be longer or not.
Anyway, the government obviously has its votes. You have the majority. You get to do whatever you want. You can ram this thing through. We know that it's being rammed through, but it just doesn't make any sense from that perspective. On the one hand you say, yes, it makes sense and we hear what you're saying, and very likely we are going to go longer than three meetings, but it almost feels as though, just because we asked, you're not going to give it to us.
That's what it feels like and I think it's unfortunate. It shouldn't be that way.