With respect to the proposed amendments, Mr. Chair, not much changes for me. I have serious questions and concerns about this. I understand to a certain extent the significance of a deadline, but this problem has been around for quite some time. I think if this committee is really going to sit down and discuss this and listen to witnesses, a number of things are going to be required.
First of all, there are six organizations listed in the original amendment. There is a proposed change to that amendment that would open it up to at least, I would think, another perhaps equal number of organizations, in the spirit of fairness. I'm assuming there would be one, if not more, per organization, and I'm not sure that any of us is going to have the time by March 31 outside of regular committee—even in regular committee, given the number of meetings we have—to do a thoughtful investigation of this or do an analysis by the committee.
We don't understand—and I think this has been shared by all members—the size and scope of this problem; we have not had a pre-emptive briefing on any dimensions of this problem historically, on how and why we're at this juncture right now. With respect to that, and as much as I respect his opinions often at this committee, I don't buy Mr. Lemay's prorogation argument, but he tried his best. As one counsel to another, it didn't work for me.
This proposed change to the amendment lacks focus; it lacks discipline. We do not have a clear objective as to how we can actually help the students. This government has already put forward in the House a plan to deal with certain parts of this problem that it feels it has a role in. I would suggest, with the greatest of respect, that we take a serious moment to pause about what we're going to do here and how we're going to do it, because we only have 14 more days.