The suggestion Mr. Maloney made could possibly satisfy everybody here. I remain concerned. I know that Mr. Turnbull indicated he doesn't think it's unconstitutional.
Certainly an argument to the contrary exists out there. In fact, Mr. Dufresne himself even indicated, and this is quoting him, “It's possible that a court could disagree”, and “what was adopted in the impugned proceeding could be invalidated.” There is a body out there that would feel that. A debate still goes on about that, the idea that a physical presence in the House would be required. That's why I made my suggestion.
However, it sounds to me that a lot of people may feel we shouldn't move forward with this. I would certainly agree because we did hear that testimony. I would be fine with the idea of adopting this quote. We should probably add the balance, this additional quote I've just indicated from Dufresne. Either way that would let us move on here. I think that might be a wise decision.