My points will be quite clear and succinct, I hope.
I think several aspects of the motion are consistent with what the subcommittee decided, that is, to conclude the study on the ArriveCan app and the study on SDTC, and to proceed with the study on the CEBA.
First, I did not have the chance to speak to the previous motion regarding the CEBA, but since that is the first item, we need to conduct a real study on the CEBA. The Auditor General's report is in fact quite scathing when it comes to EDC's management and the hundred of millions of dollars that flowed to Accenture, once again, for what specific deliverables we do not know.
I think it is our duty as parliamentarians to do the work as quickly as possible, but we also have to remember our families. We also have to consider requests from our constituents during the parliamentary break. Since the CEBA study isn't urgent, I would be agreeable to keeping the first item as it is written. So I am opposed to Mr. Nater's proposed amendment.
That being said, as parliamentarians we also have to exercise good judgment in emergencies. So I disagree with item 9 in Ms. Khalid's motion, which would prevent us from holding emergency meetings.
As to the first item, I agree that there will be no meetings on Report 8 before January 27, 2025, but I think the committee has a duty to meet in the event of an emergency.
I'm not sure if it's possible, but I would also like to propose a subamendment.