Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I completely agree with the wording of the motion. The proposed topic of study is something Quebeckers care about. In fact, the Office de la protection du consommateur du Québec is responsible for some of the regulations. The Government of Quebec has already looked into the matter. I do think it's time for us to take on an initiative of this kind, so I commend my colleague Mr. Masse's initiative. It's very important.
However, I'm inclined to vote against the proposed amendment, for the following reason. As we've said before, time is getting tight. We may have to change our schedule if we want to do things properly. I'm wondering how we should do it. I'm not convinced that it's the right way to go introducing motions with a few days' notice, providing dates and saying that we must devote two meetings to it this week, next week or in two weeks. If we start operating this way, the deadlines will eventually pile up and it will be hard to control.
I'm opposed to the amendment for the following reason. I think that we will ultimately have to hold a subcommittee meeting to discuss the schedule, be honest with each other and agree on rules for carrying out our work. I'm open to that. I even think it's possible, depending on how our discussions go on Bill C‑27, that we will need a break to find solutions to certain issues. If so, this study could very well slip in as a solution, and even help us manage our time properly if we need to discuss Bill C‑27.
I really think we should have a subcommittee meeting in the near future to discuss the schedule. I don't want my colleague to think that I'm in no hurry to do the study he proposes in his motion. This is an important issue, but it's not appropriate to do it this way, squeeze it in on very short notice.