Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's not my wish to prolong this debate. I, too, take the summons to this committee very seriously, but I look across at my five colleagues, and they've had other representatives of the Conservative Party. I think there is some validity to say it is summer and some people are on vacation and some people may or may not have gotten the summons; and I think this is a very reasonable next step. I think it's respectful of people who are on the list that this committee agreed to have come to testify.
I have found this a very enlightening week. I think we've all learned things and I do believe a lot of light has been shed on a very important issue. And this committee is charged with a very important issue, which is dealing with the ethics for public office-holders. Because of that, I believe Madame Lavallée has brought forward a very cogent, supportable next step. If at the end of September we haven't heard from these people and it's very obvious that they're either resisting or refusing to come, I think there is a next step.
Many of us are parents, all of us deal with process, and there are some logical steps to be taken. This is the middle of summer; the timeline was fairly short. It was one week of four days of meetings, and perhaps it didn't work with some people's schedules. I think Madame Lavallée has chosen a very supportable step, so because of that. I will support her motion and not the amendment, because I think that is merely an attempt to truncate the very important work of this committee.