Thank you.
Yes, I agree that there have been some really good conversations, so I'm hoping we're at a point whereby.... I feel that what Mr. Perkins has drafted and circulated is where we want to end up. I know we are in consideration of Mr. Garon's subamendment.
I think what we agreed on in conversations before the committee meeting was.... Procedurally, I'm not sure what the best way is to move forward, but perhaps we can vote in support of Mr. Garon's subamendment, and then I understand Mr. Perkins will introduce a subamendment to that.
I would just say, obviously, there's a bit of a leap of faith in how things will proceed, but as long as committee members are clear that that's the way we will proceed, we will land on the wording that Mr. Perkins has circulated, which includes the word “may”. I think that's really significant. Based on the testimony we had from our officials, that word makes a big difference in how the law will be interpreted. I think it's important that that's where we land.
As long as that's where we're all in agreement to land, I have no issue with moving forward and voting in support of Mr. Garon's subamendment and then voting in support of the changes Mr. Perkins has put forward.
Thanks.