Thank you, Chair.
I'm not vehemently opposed to anything that has been said here already. I have just a couple of brief comments.
One comment is on witnesses. I do recall, and I think members of the committee recall, that we had suggested that all suggested witnesses, suggestions from all parties, be advanced last week and that those witnesses be invited. All of us complied with that request, so I have a bit of a problem with now going back to the well again and saying that we want more witnesses, because I think we had ample opportunity to do it, particularly with Equal Voice.
If you say that you know they have received the message but chose not to respond, and yet we're saying now we're not going to proceed until we hear from them, that's perhaps something that is a little untoward, inasmuch as they had ample opportunity to respond to our request to appear. They wouldn't, and now we're saying we don't want to proceed with clause-by-clause until they come.
So I would like to see a minor change to the wording of the motion, just to be quite clear that we're not going to hold up the committee's clause-by-clause examination if Equal Voice again chooses not to respond. That's the first point.
The second point is that I want to agree with Monsieur Guimond's suggestion that regardless of what we do with respect to witnesses, it is my understanding that the three parties opposite will be supporting this motion, so it looks like we're going to go forward with additional witnesses. As long as we can get to clause-by-clause and complete clause-by-clause before we leave for the summer, if we can all come to agreement on that, then so be it, and let's go forward as quickly as possible.
Thank you, Chair.