I'm sorry, Mr. Chair; the translation wasn't coming through. It was lagging.
I understand where Mr. Savard-Tremblay is coming from, but just going back to the history that you noted, Mr. Chair, the reason I won't support the subamendment but I do want to support what was proposed before that is that, if memory serves me correctly, I took out the language that was really kind of a poke in the eye for the Liberals, and that passed to get us to the point where we could deal with this in this way. Had there been other concerns about other parts of this motion, I would think they would have been raised at that point in time.
To be fair, I can't remember if Mr. Van Bynen was there or not, so I'm not trying to be negative about his attempt on this, either. It's just that going back to where we were and where we are now, it is a good point that Mr. Savard-Tremblay is making with regard to why we're picking this particular one out. It really came from the testimony that we got back from the officials and from Mastercard, and I've seen enough of this to say that it's a big concern, and there have been some questions in the House and so forth.
For those reasons, I can't support the subamendment, because I have already come to the conclusion I need to from seeing all the information that we have already received in the testimony of this committee and elsewhere, and then second to that are the original “how we got here” reasons.
Thank you.