Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I must say that I am a bit surprised. We started with a motion by Mr. Chong which I felt was a good way of getting the information. Now the opposition wants us to talk to the federal government and insists that there should be no other witnesses. In reality, we can discuss this matter at length and not come to any understanding of why the Government of Ontario has made this decision about such an important issue. That makes no sense.
The motion provides us with some direction. There is the matter of whether we are going to do a study and whether we are going to hold one meeting or several on this issue, but now we are talking about the list of witnesses. Committees generally adopt motions that are useful, and then witnesses are discussed afterwards.
So I would like us to go back to square one and decide whether we support the motion. I think I have heard everyone else say that this is a good motion, give or take a few details. It would be useful for us to have the discussion, certainly with people from the Government of Ontario, in order to find out what happens to the federal funding.
I am against the amendment. I will simply say that the motion has become something quite different. We are no longer talking about the same motion. I do not understand why we are talking about witnesses before the motion has passed.