Thank you.
We had discussed this at the last meeting. My sense was that there was a general understanding that this was unfinished business from the summer. Like Mr. Del Mastro, I was a little shocked to see 60 witness names. That would, or could, throw everything we've done off until about May, and I don't know if that's necessary. I appreciate actually having a list that we can draw from.
I would be in favour of this motion if it were amended, where the amendment would say that the committee hold three meetings and then determine at that time if further study is required. We could choose from this witness list, we could hear...and the minister's office could give us a response. Three meetings would certainly allow us to deal with the substance of this study, and then we could move on. I'm uncomfortable moving forward with just a blanket motion that's not amended at this point, because with 60 witnesses listed it would certainly swamp our committee. If people were amenable to saying three meetings—and I think three meetings is fair—that allows us to make sure that it's adequately studied, and if people have a burning need to go forward then we'll re-address it at that point. So my amendment would be that the committee hold three meetings and then determine if further study is required.