Thank you.
I just got this. As far as preparation goes, I didn't have a chance to review this motion until it just arrived. I'm happy to be reading it now and discussing it, but I'm looking at how it breaks apart. It's like three studies in one, which is part of the challenge that, I believe, Mr. Maloney raised about when everyone gets their hands up and which motions gets considered.
I'm also going to point out that supplementary estimates (B) have already already been adopted, so I'm not sure how that works as part of this motion.
Is there a way to break this into three separate studies, again recognizing that supplementary estimates (B) have already gone? Maybe we can talk about when supplementary estimates (C) will happen. We can then have them go to the subcommittee to consider each as a separate study for analysis. That way, we can look at it as a way of going through all of them and then considering the other motions that will tabled as well. That way, they're all coming up.
That's one thought of how to deal with it, along with the other motions that have been proposed. Maybe as a friendly amendment to the second bullet, what we could do is just amend it to be on supplementary estimates (C), instead, if any, and the main estimates. We could take away the reference to supplementary estimates (B), given that they've already passed as far as timing, anyway.
Those are my two suggestions. One is that we break it into three separate motions, because they are three separate studies in any event. The second is that the second bullet be about supplementary estimates (C), if any, and the main estimates. That way, we can deal with it all.