Thank you, Chair.
I'd like to make a point and respond to the subamendment and amendment given forward by our motion.
We see more than a little bit of filibustering in this committee on other issues. I raise that only to say that I don't think anybody doubts that this piece of legislation, whether we think it's perfect in the state it is in or if it could benefit by some amendments, will pass. I would tell you that the greatest failing of legislation, in my view, is unintended consequences. Because of that, I think that asking Equal Voice—and I understand that they may or may not come, and I wouldn't want this committee to be held hostage by a specified group of people that may or may not come—deserves further examination.
I believe financial institutions should be invited to come, and I believe the nomination contest is an issue that we need to deal with in this legislation, and that is what's put forward in our motion. But I do not think it is the intent of anybody around this table to delay this unduly, nor is it anybody's view that this is any kind of tactical manoeuvre that would scupper this legislation. We are clearly of the view that this will indeed pass, and because of that, we feel that these aspects need to be examined.
My only comment on the subamendment by Monsieur Godin would be that I would hate to think that somebody may be able to come Friday or next Tuesday, and I'm wondering if we were able to give the clerk a little bit of leeway in approaching those people. I'm not about to tell very effective people how to do their work, but I hope we're doing more than sending e-mails. I know, for instance, I have contacts for Equal Voice, and I would be very happy to undertake to try to get some kind of in-person response to that request.
For financial institutions, we might want to consider whether we want somebody from the Canadian Bankers Association rather than trying to get five representatives here. So I think there are ways that, if we put our mind to it, we could be effective.
The House is scheduled to sit until June 22, so I'm wondering if it would be amenable to everyone—and I think maybe it's the spirit of what Mr. Godin is suggesting—that we try to wrap this up by June 22 whether the House is sitting or not. That may require some of us to get out our calendars and compare schedules, but just give the people who are trying to bring this all together a little bit of leeway so that the deadlines aren't so restrained and constrained that we're basically thwarting the spirit of this motion.