Thank you, Chair.
With respect, I think that is a false equivalency of epic proportions. This was submitted to Parliament and to this committee before the last subcommittee meeting. To suggest somehow that we're not prioritizing this because we want to continue the good and important work...of which one of the items that we're finishing was in fact an emergency motion brought forward. I could get very political in terms of some of the delays. I won't, out of an effort to ensure that there's a degree of collaboration.
Look, this is an important issue. I think everybody's said that, although I think it's entirely reasonable for the discussion around timing. If there's not a willingness to have that discussion, then I would question the intent [Technical difficulty—Editor] when and how this was brought up.
As I've indicated, I plan to support the motion. I think if there was a more collaborative attitude to ensure that we could find some ability to get this done.... Personally, I have no problem sitting through the summer. I did it last summer. I think there are four meeting opportunities in June that are still available. If there's a level of flexibility, if witnesses cancel or evolving situations exist, I think there's a tremendous amount that can be accomplished. It's just a matter of whether or not we can in fact agree that, yes, it's important, which I think we all do, and work together to try to find a way that we can get it done.
Quite frankly, as well, this Parliament adjourns on June 23. There are options for the committee to sit throughout the summer. It's up to this committee to make that call. To suggest that it kills the study is false. Parliament then resumes sometime in September. The false equivalencies on this are troubling to me. It's an important issue. Certainly, I hope we can be collaborative on a path forward.
I would note, Mr. Chair, that we're far beyond the 15 minutes. If there's a willingness, I'd simply call that we go to a vote.