Thanks, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the discussion and the thoughtful remarks from my colleagues, in particular Ms. Duncan in suggesting that we could build in an interim report deadline. Perhaps amending this motion would enable us to get some unanimous consent on it. It sounds to me like we're all amenable to the general idea of studying this as a first priority, which is great to hear.
Perhaps I was being a little overly ambitious for even our most dedicated House of Commons staff. They work around the clock and serve and do amazing work, so my apologies for that. However, I do think Ms. Duncan makes a really good point, that maybe we could have an interim report due on November 23 and then leave the study end date blank, perhaps. Just take that out.
To Mr. Blaikie's point, there may in fact be numerous topics that require significant debate and that will take us a little bit longer. Perhaps I was being overly ambitious in thinking that we could do all of this by November 16. My intention was really to respond to the CEO's request for a swift response, which I think...given some legislative changes that may be necessary. I get Mr. Blaikie's point that some of that may come to us anyway in second reading. I think having us discuss the recommendations, both non-legislative ones and legislative ones potentially, would be advantageous. To be able to respond and provide some feedback or guidance within a fairly compressed time frame would serve the immediate needs of the Chief Electoral Officer, who is really under the gun. If I were the person responsible for having to make sure we could have an election at any time and ensure that Canadians could exercise their democratic rights safely, I certainly would hope that a parliamentary standing committee would respond to my request for swift guidance. I think it is our duty as members on this committee to respond to that.
I think Mr. Blaikie made a really good point. I actually had a quote from the Toronto Star that I think quotes the Elections Canada website that essentially says, yes, the writ could be withdrawn. This is deeply concerning for me. If public health experts thought Canadians were being put at risk unnecessarily, they could withdraw the writ. This has never happened throughout history, as far as I know. It would be a pretty large failure of our democracy, in a way. I think it's our responsibility to step up and respond to this request.
So I hope this motion can stand with an amendment. I know that I can't amend my own motion, but Ms. Duncan has already suggested, I think, an amendment that might help us reach consensus.
Thanks very much.