Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like us to come to a decision on the motion before the end of the meeting.
Each party expressed their opinion on the number of meetings. We must acknowledge that we’ve been stuck on amendment G‑4 for six meetings. It’s rather exceptional to call witnesses back in, but the amendment that was tabled was also rather exceptional, and it seemed like a reasonable solution to me.
For the Conservatives to say it’s reasonable to hold 20 meetings, including four hours with the minister, and travel from one end of Canada to the other, seems a little over the top to me. It was the government’s job to hold cross-country consultations before tabling the bill. It’s not necessarily ours.
It is indeed necessary to hear from people who will experience the potential impacts of amendment G‑4. I think it’s reasonable to hold two additional meetings to hear them. I understood that the Conservatives did not want to accept eight meetings, as proposed by our NDP colleague. I propose that we vote on this subamendment and on the other. That’s what Mr. Motz just said.
I propose that we pass the motion and make a decision before the end of this meeting. I therefore request a vote.