Maybe I can try to clarify a little bit here.
This particular report, and the one that I'm presuming we'll be dealing with afterwards—or maybe not—was adopted by the committee in the first session of the 44th Parliament. It was presented to Parliament. All of the recommendations were adopted. They were agreed to. There was no supplementary report by any other members of the committee. There were no dissenting reports at all.
What we're asking for now—and as I said earlier, this has been a pattern, if you will, on other committees and all of them have been accepted unanimously without any dissent at all—is to simply have those reports, which were presented by the chairs of the committee in accordance with all the standard practices, have a response back from the government. Those reports have already been adopted by the previous committee.
As I said earlier, every other committee has been asking for this, given the fact of prorogation. There's no hidden agenda here. The committees did the work. They adopted recommendations as a result of that work, and now they're asking for the government to respond on the recommendations and on those reports. That's what's been going on here for the last week, so I don't know why it's a problem here.
Do you speak to the amendment? We're on the amendment right now, and I have you on the main motion.
I saw your hand up before, Mr. Sari. You were on the main motion, but we're on the amendment now. I can put you on the list. I have Mr. Hardy, Mr. Thériault and then you.
Mr. Hardy.