I just had an opportunity to see this a short while ago, when Mr. Carrie was kind enough to present it to me.
I guess there are two issues for me. I think, as Mr. Fontana stated, it certainly is within the responsibilities or the powers of the minister to be able to delay the application for any reasons the minister deemed fit to take it to the 75-day timeframe. The word “delay”, then, doesn't cause me any angst or consternation.
The problem I have with the amendment is that it says the minister should consider it, but he doesn't say why and it doesn't really have the committee taking a position with respect to the committee feeling that this is a desirable outcome. It just says think about it, and if you have time to think about it, consider it.
I think what we're looking for, or what I was looking for in moving the motion, was to have a position from the committee that we had an expressed desire for an outcome for this to be extended. I think the main motion expresses that, and I think Mr. Fontana has been able to clarify the fact that it does in fact adhere to the powers of the minister. Therefore, I think it makes sense to proceed with the motion as it stands now.