Thank you, Chair.
We certainly, on our side, don't take issue with the motion. Mr. McCallum's intent is something that we, first, don't have a problem with, and second, actually think is a pretty good idea.
The difficulty we have rests around his comments with respect to timing. We have in good faith tried to seek some approval and at least some unanimity around the table that in fact this is a good motion and that its concept is well thought out and, as I think, will be helpful.
The difficulty is, this is a huge issue in the industry. They have gone through negotiations, they currently have Mr. Purdy crossing the country trying to explain exactly what they have come up with in terms of at least a responsible position, and they have tried to get support from shareholders. One of the difficulties we face is a dynamic whereby we and the Liberals and Bloc, if they are going to support this motion, put ourselves in the position of exerting potentially a negative influence on the outcome of a private sector debate on a private sector issue in which we, while we certainly have responsibilities with respect to resident citizens of this country, certainly should not be putting ourselves in the position of influencing, whether by accident or on purpose, the outcome of the vote on April 25.
I would respectfully submit that due consideration be given by the mover of the motion to our waiting until shortly after April 25—we're not talking that far into the future, just three weeks—to allow all of the work surrounding this issue that has taken place within the private sector, outside of the realms of the federal government, to take its proper course. Once that vote has been completed, we are in a much better position, not to put ourselves into a subjective position of potentially influencing the outcome, but in fact into an objective position of assisting the individuals who've been impacted by this issue over the last number of months.