Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's a pleasure to be here today. I want to say hello to all the members of the committee. Mr. Chair, I recognize your great expertise in the art of shepherding the committee brilliantly.
At the March 18 meeting, it was agreed that, after the study on women veterans, we would return to the study of subamendments.
As the chair said, I'm replacing my colleague Luc Desilets. I support the motion as presented. I think the amendment and the subamendment may be interesting, but I think they dilute the essence of the motion, which is to shed light on the reasons why the rules of the competition were not followed to the end.
If I understand correctly, the amendment and the subamendment add another subject. In fact, we're saying that we're interested in the timeline. However, the purpose of the motion, as it stands, is to invite people who will help us understand why the process wasn't followed. That's obviously my party's position.
Since I'm loyal to my colleague and friend Luc Desilets, I will support the motion. Although I don't find the amendment and the subamendment uninteresting, I don't think they have any purpose. Therefore, I will not be voting in favour of them.
That's my position, Mr. Chair.