Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I think the opposition is confusing two issues as well. We're talking about two issues here. One is deregulation, and that is what the minister has moved ahead on. With regard to the forbearance decision, there has been no movement there. It's being studied right now. I don't want to confuse the two issues.
My colleague talks about the “backhanded” tactics of the minister. The minister made the changes for deregulation; he had the legal right under section 8 to move ahead, and that's exactly what he did. It seems like a reasonable way to start. If the member believes the recommendations are all good, he must realize that with 127 recommendations, you can't move on those overnight. It seems we're moving too fast to start the process but not fast enough to get all the recommendations in. You know, we can't just go, boom, 127 recommendations on the table.
As I said, I would recommend a friendly amendment to have the minister here so that we can talk about the whole issue, because it appears you're confusing one issue with the other. If you want to talk about telecom and the entire strategy around consumer protection, we can talk about legislation. Bill C-41 was introduced to protect consumers when there's an attempt to monopolize or re-monopolize.
So I think it would make a better discussion to maybe cut this into two motions, one with the friendly amendment, where the minister comes forward, and one where we can talk about this comprehensive study and what exactly we want to put forward here.