In this committee there are lots of things that are worked through on the fly. In this particular case, we're trying to create a subamendment that both aligns with Quebec and deals with some of the concerns committee members raised. I call that compromise, collegiality and a constructive process. Those are the intentions behind circulating that, so I take issue with the sentiments from Mr. Masse on that. It's actually a constructive way to move forward, and I think it deals with a lot of the concerns that committee members have brought up. Obviously, we can debate that. I think that, because G-2 hinges on the vote on NDP-2, it's perfectly legitimate to bring that up and have the conversations about how these concepts work together, all on the same definition of “anonymize”, and that's important.
I don't know whether there's a path forward here, but I wonder, if we had a moment to suspend and consider the wording, whether we could find a path forward on what I've circulated and then come back and vote on NDP-2. Chair, I respectfully ask if committee members are willing to suspend for just five minutes to consider and to see whether we can find a path forward on both NDP-2 and G-2, and when we come back perhaps we can vote.