Thank you.
I am thinking about the analysts, who will have to finalize this motion. We have to understand it in order to move forward.
I entirely agree on Mr. Samson's amendment, which proposes that the committee continue the study. However, the words “at a date to be scheduled later” are troubling because that could be any time. Perhaps we could set a deadline, which would be better.
I want to emphasize something else. Mr. Généreux's motion recommends, without requiring, that the government analyze the commissioner's recommendations. It is extremely important to clarify that. The committee can demand nothing from government, but it is proposing that the commissioner's recommendations be analyzed. Those recommendations refer to feasibility and things of that kind—the exact terms escape me. We are recommending that to the government. Its response to us may be that there is not enough time to do so, but that will be its decision.
Our committee could do that. We will continue this analysis until the government reaches a decision on the matter. Perhaps we could set a deadline. I do not know whether that is possible, Mr. Samson. I do not know whether you have a date to propose. I leave that in your hands.
In this way, we would have your part of the motion as an amendment and would continue the study at a later date. We could set a deadline and recommend that the government analyze the recommendations. We would have the two statements contained in the motion. I do not know what Mr. Généreux thinks of that, but that is how I see the amendment.