Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I look forward to seeing what my colleagues think of it. I'm not necessarily closed to the subamendment proposed by Mr. Muys. We need to determine whether, in fact, in practice, it's something that's feasible. I'll listen carefully to my colleagues' comments.
My intention was mainly that we hold a meeting and invite the three ministers involved in the case, namely the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who made the remarks in question, and the other two ministers whose departments are involved in funding road projects.
Of course, holding this meeting outside the committee's normal schedule would be a good idea, as we wouldn't be upsetting the committee's current work schedule.
So, I don't see any problem with holding the meeting within 14 days rather than 30 days. The question is mainly whether it's feasible, from a practical point of view. I don't know the ministers' schedules or the state of the House's resources, so I don't know what the dates would be. The urgency of the matter would still be emphasized if this meeting were held within 30 days, but it would be emphasized even more if it were held within 14 days. I'm open to that too.
As to whether the meeting would be two hours or three, I'm very open to discussion. I'm willing to work with whatever the consensus is among the members of this committee.