Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Maybe we could work something out as a friendly amendment or something along those lines that we could all be amenable to.
You mention in your motion that you'd like the minister in front of us to explain his decision. I think that might be a very short discussion. Why don't we have the minister, if we're going to call the minister? As I said, I'm still trying to get a grip on what you're asking us to do here. I thought you said you wanted the minister to come; you wanted to do a study; then you wanted the minister to come again. Why don't we just have the minister come and explain or talk about his philosophy about the telecom deregulation, and we could ask him any questions along those lines so that it would open it up a little bit? I think that might be something that would make for better discussion, and we could talk about a few more topics in that regard, because this seems to be very narrow casting.
The second point is that the comprehensive study is not really defined in the motion. You're not going to get agreement from me to say that this hasn't been studied well enough. It appears to me that two years is not too short a time. This is a fast-moving industry. Consumers deserve the break today instead of delaying it further.
My viewpoint is that this is more or less politicking. We haven't heard a darn thing. The opportunity has been there since June 2006. I'm not really surprised. I know the NDP likes regulations. It hasn't met a regulation it hasn't liked. The Bloc seems to want to show that Canada doesn't work and we're not going to provide any benefits to consumers. As for the Liberals right now, really, this is your study, and we're doing our best to recommend it. We're not picking and choosing. We're doing the best we can to move forward. So why don't we, if the minister is coming, just have a session with the minister and not worry about re-studying things over and over again and calling the same witnesses over and over again?