Having listened to that, I would like personally to hear at least from the department officials on this bill. I know that we're being called to the House for votes very shortly, and I've had a discussion with the parliamentary secretary.
I think that because so many people in the House really wanted to see some movement on this file, we cannot just gut this bill without at least—I'm not saying you're not credible, Mr. Wallace—I know you are—but I'd like to hear from the officials the reasons why we can't proceed at this time, and at least have them in here.
I think we have about another week on this, so if we did that, then there may be some consent needed in the House by you as the mover of the bill, if in fact this bill is emptied after hearing from them. I'm not prepared to make that decision today.
I'm glad you're here telling us in person that you understand those ramifications and complexities. I think it's a complexity any government would face, so in the spirit of being very supportive of the intention of this bill, but recognizing that it's not just the federal jurisdiction and that there are technical problems, I don't want people to have to rely on my word. I'd like to hear it from the justice officials of the government.
That would be my recommendation: that we maybe bring in—We have a future business meeting, and maybe we can establish that we just have a meeting—it might not take all that long—with the justice officials, just because I know this is an important issue for many people across the land.
I'm not even apologizing for that. It is an important issue for many people.