Yes. It is on the subamendment.
The minister came before the committee and made remarks that indicated that he had openness and ideas about amendments in general. Some of them have been argued in the House of Commons by Mr. Williams and others. Instead of seeing that as a negative, you could see it as a positive that you have a responsive minister who's listening to the input of people around him.
I think that's part of why we do a study like this. At the outset, the minister is setting the tone, saying that they're open to amending this bill. Obviously, the bill stands as is. We do not have those amendments already made. They're not cooked up in the backroom. They're not already done, ready and waiting. There are things that the government is open to listening to and working on, using this study and the witnesses who present testimony here as ways to refine thinking about a bill that is so important for Canadians.
We don't have the amendments right now. It's not like we're trying to hide something here. The minister operated in good faith and gave you a really clear indication of how open the governing party and the minister are about amending the bill. I think that's a good thing. I don't know how this is being contorted into something that somehow is negative. The minister operated in good faith.
I suggest that we can certainly bring information. The minister, when he attended the committee and appeared before the committee, made it very clear that as soon as possible, he will provide information that identifies the areas and the things that the government heard through consultations and through speeches in the House and will be able to provide that clarification.
To me, that again shows a responsiveness that is ideal, in my view, for a governing party that's considering a piece of legislation with lots of input from stakeholders and members of Parliament from across the aisle who will make good suggestions about how to strengthen this bill. It also is going to take a bit of time to get that information to colleagues, although not a long time. I think we could probably have something to you by the middle of next week in terms of a letter and some information detailing what the government has heard.
I think what we've heard repeatedly is that this is a key piece of legislation that many people have an interest in seeing move forward. I don't think pausing this study benefits anybody. It doesn't benefit Canadians and it doesn't benefit this process. In fact, right now I feel really bad for Mr. Dufresne for wasting his time. He's sitting here listening to this when we could be asking him vital questions that inform the study.
Mr. Perkins, I respect you greatly, but it seems like a colossal waste of the committee's time when we have witnesses here who could be informing this process. Why don't we move on with the process—