I confess that I don't understand the argument that witnesses have prepared. It would be far more improper if a witness is not ready because we move a meeting ahead. We may ask witnesses to use the notes they have already prepared at a later date, but they are still ready to appear.
I don't understand that argument. We're not talking about cancelling the study here, we're talking about possibly deferring it one meeting. Honestly, if we ever reach a consensus, I would be inclined to suggest that we hold an additional meeting. The difference between considering the bill in early June and doing it as soon as possible is that, if we wait until early June, the session could end before the bill goes back to the House.
It is in everyone's interest to get it back to the House quickly. This is an important bill, and it deserves to be discussed. We have had farmers appear on several occasions, and we have talked about our reality on this. Out of respect for those who don't agree with the bill, we can debate and discuss it. That is what the committee is for.
The current topic under study will not lead to a bill. It is not urgent. We have absolutely no need to complete the study by the end of the parliamentary session. We are not there. We will complete it anyway. I don't feel that this study will particularly suffer from being deferred for one more meeting.