Well, Mr. Chair, I'm perplexed by the honourable member's modification, given that the motion he had proposed himself indicates that we should have these consultations. He recognizes that, due to the closing of the consultation on October 2, we should have an appearance by the minister, and I'm assuming also witnesses, before October 2. That, of course, is not next week but the following week.
Given that that is the motion proposed by Mr. Deltell, a motion supported by the honourable member from Carleton, I am perplexed at how substantively our motions are any different. From a realistic perspective, if we were to open up the number of sessions until all Canadians who want to appear have been heard, certainly we wouldn't be doing the work we need to get done on the pre-budget consultations. They are already scheduled to take place the following week. I think it's important, given members' time, that we be very judicious in our suggestion of witnesses and making sure that we bring the most representative groups possible before us to have an initial look at this.
If the minister and the government were to proceed on these initiatives, they would certainly be bringing them back in the form of legislation, which this committee would have an opportunity to go through at a much greater depth. I think it's important, in this period before the consultation period ends, that this committee have an opportunity to take a look at this. It is reasonable for us to say that we'll have three sessions on this issue, all during next week, in addition to the work that we've already scheduled for the pre-budget consultations.
To answer his question, I would not consider that a friendly modification.