I’d like to clarify some things on a procedural level so that we can all agree on the terminology.
Mr. Godin tabled an amendment to Mr. Serré’s main motion. Mr. Serré just told us that he is ready to accept the first four points of Mr. Godin’s amendment as written. The fifth point, intended to push the deadline back, which Mr. Godin moved to delete, still stands. Then, we were going to bring forward an amendment and add a sixth point. That said, it was only mentioned unofficially. No one moved an amendment or a subamendment to that effect. That was the state of things when we suspended the meeting, and Mr. Godin had the floor.
So, this is what I propose. I will write down the names of those who want to speak as the clerk communicates them to me, or as I see them on the screen. Mr. Godin had the floor the last time we suspended the meeting.
That said, I recall that, hypothetically speaking, even though there seemed to be a consensus to pass Mr. Serré’s proposal, it had to pass unanimously. Otherwise, we must study Mr. Godin’s amendment point by point, as we had agreed.
Is that clear for everyone? If it is, I will now give the floor to Mr. Godin.
Mr. Godin, you have the floor.