First of all, there's the question of whether you're prepared to entertain the motion as being appropriate.
Second, it would seem to me that we had the sponsor of the bill speak with respect to the bill fairly adequately. There was a round of questioning, which the member participated in, and we had a full round of discussions about some of the issues relating to the bill. There were a number of them--there is no doubt about that--that were problematic and of concern. The sponsor of the bill and the seconder, I understand, introduced a number of specific amendments that were circulated amongst the committee. We've heard from various witnesses about what they may have had or not had in mind. We have concluded as a committee, insofar as the calling of witnesses was concerned, that this was sufficient. The sponsor of the bill had a lot of input as to who might or might not be called and testified herself.
That being said, there is no need for further witnesses. If the member wishes to further amend her bill, that's something that could be done during the course of the clause-by-clause. But the amendments that were put forth were substantive and they were extensive. I see no point or merit in delaying the bill for a further date. This member had not only days and weeks but months to hear from various parties and to decide how she may want to amend the bill.
While I would agree that the bill is flawed in many respects, both in wording and in its objects and what it hopes to achieve and how it may hope to achieve it, and is probably a bill that has fundamental problems, I don't think we should be deferring the matter. We should be proceeding with the clause-by-clause today and dealing with the bill as it stands.