In fact, Mr. Chairman, we do not want the minister to have every available option. We want him to follow one option, which is the one to extend the deadline as far as possible. If we say that the minister has every option available to him under the act, we don't need to adopt a resolution here. You might as well send him a copy of the act and tell him to respect it, and the committee's role would just be superfluous.
We want to express the wish of the committee, we want the committee to provide advice. Therefore, it must be directional. We are not here to tell the minister to enforce the law. He does not need us to do that, that's his responsibility. However, I believe the message we want to send — and that is why I find the motion very restrictive — is that we want as little political intervention as possible in the process. In that sense, we would tell the minister to adhere to what is prescribed in the law. We are not asking him to do anything illegal, or anything else, we are just telling him that he should extend the deadline as far as is authorized by law.
Simultaneously, we want the market and shareholders to have an array of options, because if shareholders don't have any real choice between both options because of bureaucratic interference, can it be said that they truly have a choice?
So, in that way, we simply want to express a wish. But we cannot do this by telling the minister that all options are available to him. We are just letting him know which option the committee prefers that he take. I think that you'll agree with me that if we aim any lower, it would not even be worth it to pass a motion.