Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It sounds like you're actually somewhat inclined--not that you're allowed to vote--toward this amendment that would change it from June to September. That is the subamendment I'm speaking to.
In case some members aren't fully convinced of the benefits of moving it to September, I want to outline some of the advantages of delaying it until then.
I thought Mr. Murphy's arbitrary two-week deadline was a bit abrupt. He suggested that it was a way to hold the government to the fire. I suggested it was a form of blackmail, and maybe a little bit of bullying on his part. So if we moved this from June to September, nobody could make the accusation that Mr. Murphy was trying to be a bully, or blackmail the government. Nobody could raise the spectre of such an assertion, and Mr. Murphy could face his constituents with a good conscience, knowing he hadn't tried to do such a thing.
That's my first point, and it's an important one.
My second point is that it gives Mr. Mulroney more time to fit us into his schedule. As I said earlier, this might be a very legitimate concern on his part. He's a busy guy, doing international consulting and that sort of thing. If we opened up the parameters at which he could look at his schedule, it's likely he'd be busy over the next two weeks. Is it likely he'd be busy for the entire next three or four months? It's possible, but I don't think it's likely.
I couldn't hear Mr. Martin's comments. His mike wasn't on.
I suggest it would be a little more respectful of the former prime minister to give him a larger widow of opportunity.
Mr. Chair, it appears that a lot of people are talking. Perhaps you could get their attention. I'd like to think that my comments are of value.