Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks to my colleagues, and thanks also to Mr. Perkins for putting forth his amendment. It is, I acknowledge, more involved than mine. I built mine simply to also get the piece about invitation right out of there. I had the suspicion that other members of this committee would be equally enraged with regard to how this has been treated. I think Madam Michelle Rempel Garner mentioned the cost to Canadians of the delays and the cost to this committee—I should say to Parliament—but these practices also cost Canadians daily, and that's significant as well.
My original intent in trying to get at this issue was what was taking place.... It was well identified by the Rogers team, but it's a practice that is also partially used by other types of operators. I want to get to the issue, and that's why I wanted to follow up specifically on this.
With the amendment that's been proposed by Mr. Perkins, I really don't care to hear more excuses from Mr. Bains. I've been around here long enough, even with him as minister, to hear enough excuses on different things, and that doesn't really get to the issue and the decision-making. I think it's necessary.
It's clear that there's probably advice coming from Mr. Bains to the whole Rogers team on how to deal with Parliament and so forth. To be quite frank, I don't feel either way about that situation. I mean, we can have him here or not have him here. The reality for me is that I know what's going to happen. I'm going to hear a whole litany and inventory of excuses, and I just prefer to get to the source.
I agree, Mr. Perkins, that maybe we do need to talk to Edward Rogers at this point. I remember the Rogers family quite differently when I started in this place to where it's at right now. It used to be a Canadian icon with regard to building itself in radio telecommunications in particular. This weasel language that's now put in there is certainly very difficult for people to accept, especially when they're on fixed budgets and incomes and have expectations.
To go back to your amendment, I would like to test the waters to see whether or not we could just go right to the source of where we started with this, with Mr. Staffieri. As well, I just want to hear some clarification in terms of procedure about going to the Commons.
I have a copy of the original one that you sent in last night. This one that you're proposing here is a bit more involved, so I'm waiting to see if we're going to get a copy of that, but I'm open to those ideas.
Secondary to that, have that as an immediate backup if we want to report back to the House later on as well, and then, just a notation, maybe not at the end of Christmas but at the end of Parliament's scheduled sitting. I put in by December 12, but we could report any time before Parliament rises.
With that, those are my questions and concerns. I just want to point out, too, that we don't have unlimited time on this, so I'm hoping that we can get at least some consensus on your subamendment, Mr. Perkins.
I don't know where the Liberals are with this, but it's clear that, until we have him here—and this is what we were supposed to be here about—then we're treading water.
Again, I'll just complete with that and hear what other members are saying.