Mr. McLeod, I agree: I need arbitration. That's what points of order are for.
I would hope that open banking will not be the last subject we cover. I have ideas for subamendments to the motion to strengthen it, including to have recommendations in the report. Then we'd have, if you'd be willing to have it again, a stress test study. Again, I have the motion.
This one needs to be strengthened, so we can have a comprehensive report. Then we can ask for it to be tabled and made public within 120 days after we report to the government through the House of Commons. We need a mandatory appearance by the advisory committee on open banking. For any major change to our banking system, such as the one that open banking could produce, I think it would be wise to have the minister appear as well. That was the experience in the United Kingdom—and that's what the European Union directives were indicating they would like to do. I think that such a large change to the banking system requires the minister to appear and explain his intent with that section of the budget that I read, from page 355, and exactly where he sees this going. I think that's the right thing to do.
If you'd be willing to amend the motion, then we could move on to other matters, such as scheduling witnesses for this. Beyond just the two I mentioned, I think the attendance of the advisory committee on open banking should be required in the motion—I mentioned the members of it—as well as the minister.
We should be offering specific legislative changes, if they're required and if we recommend open banking.