Thanks.
I wasn't anticipating an amendment, but I was listening intently to Ms. Ferreri's attempt to amend the motion.
From my perspective we've literally been saying that we want to do a more fulsome and robust study. What Ms. Ferreri has just suggested cuts that study down even further. It makes it more narrow rather than more robust, which is counter to where the committee conversation has been going.
I'm not really sure why we would be doing that or why that would move us closer to consensus, when it's really going to make the study more narrow. I think we heard from Mr. Lemire that his motion, which was adopted by the committee, has been sitting there. He's been waiting patiently. Mr. Masse said he thought that was a better place to start. I think I agree with that. It ensures that we do a more robust study.
I certainly would reassure members of this committee that, if the subcommittee can meet, I'm sure we could take Mr. Lemire's motion and work towards a study or wording for this motion on which we could achieve consensus. That would include some of the things that were in Mr. Perkins' original motion for which we've tried to suggest there's a path forward to do.