So for clarification, there is nothing in that motion that cancels Mr. Preston's call for a study. There is nothing whatsoever that cancels or supercedes the need for study on this issue. So for Mr. Guimond to assume that just because his remarks implied something, that would cancel a previous motion...is procedurally invalid. We don't know what the Chief Electoral Officer will say, but I think it's important for us to be clear that he will be held to account before this committee if he does not reverse his position. He got it wrong, and we want to communicate that very clearly to him.
What I would propose--and I know Mr. Godin has a motion on the floor, and I will offer this as a friendly amendment, which he can reject if he wishes--is that if the Chief Electoral Officer accepts the committee's desire for him to reverse his position on veiled voting, then the study on that subject be considered cancelled. So in other words, if he agrees with our decision, if he agrees with us that people must demonstrate their face before voting, then this whole study is done. We won't even proceed with the study at all. His motion was about more than just bringing forward the Chief Electoral Officer; it was about bringing forward witnesses, etc. What I'm saying is that if, as we hope, the Chief Electoral Officer reverses his position, then the whole matter is considered cancelled before this committee. Is that reasonable?