That's true. Even if these discussions were held in camera, it would be relevant to discuss them again in committee. That would allow all the other committee members to discuss them as well.
The fact remains that the purpose of this motion is to conclude the SDTC and ArriveCan studies. The sub-amendment we're supposed to be talking about is neither interesting nor relevant in this meeting, but it still seems very important to us to mention this desire to finish these studies in the company of the witnesses who had been mentioned.
That said, I'd like to remind you that it's very contradictory of the Conservatives to unnecessarily prolong the debate on this issue, especially since they want to hold other meetings to replace those we've had to cancel due to systematic obstruction. It's all very ironic. What will come of all this? We'll be sitting for weeks when we're supposed to be with our constituents. I don't think that's really necessary, unless it's an emergency. In any case, in the event of an emergency, we can resort to the procedure provided for in Standing Order 106(4), of course. I say this in good faith; the proposal contained in point 9 of the motion could have been reworded, so as to clarify things and avoid meetings being called unnecessarily during the weeks when we're not sitting and we're supposed to be with our fellow citizens.
On that note, I'll wait until we finish the debate on this subamendment, which is really irrelevant, I repeat. It's just an attempt to buy time, and it's completely absurd, given that we could be working precisely during the hours that are allocated to this committee.