Mr. Cannings, it's actually quite timely that you brought up your concern regarding the amendment.
Monsieur Simard, I appreciate your putting forward your amendment.
Chair, I think you made the appropriate decision here. When it was originally proposed, I thought it was a much larger amendment, but clearly the size of the amendment within this general motion is acceptable.
I would like to move a subamendment, and I hope it will be considered friendly, that we strike the wording under subsection (c) and replace it with “the impact of the pipeline cancellation on Canada's contribution to meeting the world's environmental targets.”
In French, it's “l'impact de l'annulation de ce pipeline”—
Now I'm hearing myself in translation, so out of respect for you all, I won't go ahead and skewer the French language.
I just want to move that subamendment and I hope it will be friendly.
The reason I think it's a great subamendment is that it does address some of Mr. Cannings' concerns that it's such a broad issue, the energy transition. It could really be its own study, and what we're looking for is a very targeted study. Therefore, we propose that the subamendment say “the impact of the pipeline cancellation on Canada's contribution to meeting the world's environmental targets”, which I think will give Mr. Simard and Mr. Cannings, and anyone else, a great opportunity to talk about their perspective and invite witnesses to talk about their perspective, but also keep this study very narrowly focused on the Keystone pipeline specifically.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.