Personally, Mr. Chair, I certainly don't support this motion. As Mr. Liepert said, some of its content is quite inflammatory.
I have proposed another motion that would allow us to discuss the underlying problem. It has the advantage of inviting the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada and other institutions that have the right to ask questions on the practices of banks, in order to protect consumers.
In addition, it is not beneficial to hold a minimum of six meetings on the issue. In my view, no more than three meetings are needed. I think it's a topic that we can address and it's important to do so.
My motion has a second advantage. By inviting the agency to testify—it is studying the issue right now—we would be able to find out which questions it is asking and check whether a good job is being done. We could also propose other questions. In my view, once the MPs agree, the Standing Committee on Finance can have an impact.
I think there are benefits to the second motion, but I leave it up to the committee to determine whether or not it is in favour of Mr. Dusseault's motion.