I have just a few points on this. Three of the permanent members on this committee weren't here to discuss this very serious matter. While Mr. Pacetti suggests that all people are in favour of it, this is an identical bill to what we dealt with in the last Parliament, and it was voted against by members of this committee. So to assume that we're all in favour of it, to assume that anything's changed....
We still have some concerns about who all of this encompasses, and we need to hear from witnesses. We need to hear from the department. We need to hear, number one, from the author of the bill to explain to us what the difference is, if there is any difference. And the way I read it, there's a minimal difference.
I don't think we have time to do it justice, and I'd hate to see it move too quickly through, just because of a deadline that could be extended if these members saw fit to do this bill proper justice and to let us hear the proper witnesses, all of the witnesses we need to hear. There is no consensus around this table—and I have quotes to back that up from the last time.
This is the same bill. I don't know why people would have changed their minds. So I think it's only fair to the author of this bill, and to the legislation and to the firefighters, that we do give due diligence to this, and grant an extension so that we can listen to all of the witnesses and get on with what we promised Canadians we would do, to hear about asset-backed commercial paper.