Thank you very much, Chair, I appreciate that.
So I would say to you, Chair, that what we could be doing is relevant, and I would say, with the greatest respect, that it is germane because that is my motion. I am putting out one direction. In the motion I am giving some reasons that we've had to do this, Chair. Everything I'm arguing right now is to say why that motion had to be here. We didn't do it because we wanted to be obstructionist. We know there needs to be changes. You, sir, and I, and Mr. Lukiwski, and Mr. Reid, and a number of other people literally spent years—actually I have it here.
We were seized of this on October 7, 2010, and the study was the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada entitled Responding to Changing Needs—Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Following the 40th General Election. We were seized of that on October 7, 2010, and we didn't finish until February 9, 2012. It was tabled in the House on February 27. In total, we had 24 meetings. There were 11 in the 40th Parliament and 13 in the 41st Parliament. That's the way it came, with the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. It was a whole report spelled out in just the way I outlined. That makes sense. If Canadians saw that's what we were doing, dealing with the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, we wouldn't be having the politics we're having right now. We would not. There would be no need.