Thank you, Chair.
That's what I thought was the distinction, and I have a problem with it. The whole purpose of it is to allow people not to be caught off guard, so that nobody can plan a sneak attack, and so that nobody gets ambushed, and so that we don't have this big issue that's going to create headlines and nobody knows anything about it. But if we're already dealing with a matter, to then break that down and slow it down even more, to say that even though we're already engaged in an issue, and we're in the middle of it and trying to make determinations on where we're going to go, we suddenly have to stop and give 48 hours' notice to put a motion, I have a problem with that. If collectively we think the motion that's being put forward is too substantive to move on too quickly, then we can just move to table, and we can buy ourselves that time. But it seems to me that we don't want to give somebody the ability to obstruct the efficiency of the committee in dealing with fundamental issues that are already properly on the agenda, on the floor in front of us, in which we're already engaged, and to bring all the discussion to a halt and buy themselves this 48 hours when we already have the ability to do that if procedurally we feel we need to slow down a bit.
I'm not comfortable, nor do I see the need to provide this new tool--I see it more as a tool than a protection--to members of the committee.
Things work fine the way they are.