On that subject, also, I have made a decision I would like to inform the committee of. You can correct me if I am mistaken.
At the last meeting, before the end of the sitting, a motion was moved by Mr. Godin, to which Ms. Ashton proposed an amendment, which was agreed to by the committee. Words like "leaves out" and "stricken out" were used, and that might have made the effect of the amendment on the main motion ambiguous.
The decision I have made is this. The committee can tell me quickly, by unanimous consent, whether it approves it or not.
The first point in Mr. Godin's motion asked that "the committee proceed with clause‑by‑clause consideration of the Bill for a duration of four supplemental meetings, at a frequency of two meetings per week." Ms. Ashton's amendment, adopted by the committee, asked specifically that it instead be "6.5 hours of meeting". I think that was clearly understood by everyone.
The second point in Mr. Godin's motion proposed that "consideration of clause 54 of Bill C‑13 be postponed to the end of clause‑by‑clause consideration and be subject to debate." I am making the decision to retain the second point of the motion in full. After listening to the meeting again and rereading the unrevised transcript several times, I realized that there really was confusion. Given that ambiguity, I prefer to have the amendment alter the main motion as little as possible.
I want to be sure we all understand this clearly. To summarize, Mr. Godin's amended motion refers to "6.5 hours of meeting", in accordance with the amendment adopted earlier that was clearly understood by everyone. The second point of the motion remains intact.
Does the committee unanimously consent to this decision?