I was hoping to bring them over as witnesses to give an illustration from both sides of the House—actually three sides of the House with the exception of the Scottish nationalists—about how government programming could be an effective way. Not to steal a slogan from years gone by, but we'd make it a “made in Canada” solution, as it were. Whether you start it at second reading or not, I don't know, but the people who have.... I know how it works, and I know the machinations of it from looking at the journals of 1997 to 2004 and all those years when they used it, where it was successful and where it was not successful. However, it would be nice to hear people at our level, politicians who have such a genuine interest about certain issues, come here and say, “It's not that great.”
Elizabeth May knows about it as well. She talked about this because she talked to her counterpart in Westminster. She was not a fan of programming, but why? I don't know why she didn't like it, and I'd like to hear from that person so I could say that she may have a point, or she may not. It may be because she's the only Green person in Westminster and doesn't get her fair say. I think it's worth looking at. I say that because whatever evolves from this filibuster or this committee, I hope that at some point we get a chance to have a look at it, not just for us, but for future governments.
That's about it, unless, Mr. Genuis, you'd like a bigger break, but you're only 20 minutes in. As David Christopherson would say, you're merely clearing your throat.