Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I rise specifically in relation to the fact that you have taken the amendment to the motion moved by my colleague, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, under advisement. I would like to add a little context as to it being within the scope of the discussion. The report does, in fact, talk about the net zero accelerator and therefore makes this amendment relevant.
Concurrence motions and amendments to them have been used time and again to structure a committee's follow-up study, including, and I would list a number of examples, deadlines for reports, topics to study, new recommendations to be made and witnesses to hear from, and that includes witnesses being ordered to appear. Therefore, it follows that the House can support a committee by ordering documents to be reviewed as part of that study.
Therefore, I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that the amendment my colleague moved is not only relevant but pertinent and follows the precedent that has been set in this place. I would further note, and I know the parliamentary secretary is not very happy about having to debate these sorts of things, it appears that Conservatives have a better grasp and control of the House than the governing party does.