I'm not going to judge anybody's amendment on a motion, but again, to say that we're going to do an amendment on a motion that says that we will do Ms. Bradford's motion after Mr. Blanchette-Joncas' study....
We're all in public here. Everybody's going to look pretty bad if we turn around and do a different study afterwards, if you know what I mean. To me, I want Ms. Bradford to have her study after we are finished with Maxime's study. You know, all sorts of interesting things could come out of it. I don't know that we need to do an amendment to his motion to get that done. I think we're all in agreeance.
It's all in public. It is a little beyond the norm to do an amendment to a motion on a study that will study another study after the study. Instead, I think we could all agree in public that we're going to do your study next, after this one, all in good faith. It's all in public. We could just vote. You could withdraw your amendment and we could vote on his motion and carry the day.
I mean, if anybody goes against you, they're a liar. It's in public, so it's pretty good opposition research in a re-election campaign if you're a liar on something like this. I give you my word, and I'm sure everybody else here would give you their word too. I think it's recorded as well, so it would be good on Twitter if somebody went against their word.