Thank you, MP Masse, for that point of order. I will entertain your point of order and I think you're correct, basically.
Mr. Vis, although I appreciate the effort to try to find a path forward, this is basically asking the committee to vote on something that we've already agreed to, with an amendment.
Colleagues, just so we're clear, we have Mr. Perkins' motion. We have different paths. Either we adopt the motion, or we defeat it. Either we amend the motion or we don't. If the motion was defeated, a member could bring another motion that would seek to amend Mr. Lemire's motion. We would need unanimous consent to revisit a motion that's already been voted on by the committee. What we could also do is just adopt the motion that adds to Mr. Lemire's motion to say that, building on what the committee voted on on September 26, the committee has decided that it wants to add a couple of meetings or to invite such-and-such witnesses. That's a possibility.
The way you presented your amendment, Mr. Vis, I'm afraid it would be more akin to amending Mr. Lemire's motion, which we already voted on. We would need unanimous consent, and then that would take us away from the motion that we're debating right now, which is Mr. Perkins' motion.
We're back to square one. Mr. Masse is correct that we have only 21 minutes left. I don't see any more hands up, which means that the debate on the motion of Mr. Perkins will collapse, and that will bring it to a vote. We still have some time for that 106(4) meeting that was called, and there are other venues, which I've just outlined for the committee.
Mr. Vis, go ahead.