Thanks very much.
I think we have a couple of options. We can go with what Mr. Blaikie suggested, which I thought was practical. The goal that we all share is to move forward on this expeditiously. We all share that goal, I think.
One way to do that, from my perspective, that makes sense is what Mr. Blaikie suggested. It allows us to move forward by Tuesday and it allows the subcommittee to iron out all the details, the scheduling issues, prioritization issues, amendment issues and that sort of thing.
The other approach would be to do it here in committee now and work through the amendments now. I think there are a few problems with that for us. One is, in general, I just don't think that's the most efficient way to work through what we're going to have to work through. Let's be honest. There's a schedule that we need to look at and figure out how this jives together. I don't think having all of us sit here doing that is the most efficient way to begin with. A subcommittee would be a great way to approach that, I think, practically speaking. It would, by happenstance, also allow another committee that's supposed to be meeting with other colleagues to meet as well.
I prefer Mr. Blaikie's proposal on how we move forward on it. If we have to start moving amendments, we can do that. I'm happy to do that.
Mr. McLean, I would ask for your understanding that it's hard for us to vote on the language of a motion that we haven't had a chance to amend yet. The spirit here, what you're hearing from Mr. Beech and myself and all of us, we want to do the study. There's not opposition to doing the study. That's not the issue, but I think the specific language.... It's difficult for us to approve something that we know we want to amend.
Let's move forward with the study, but let's find a way to amend it as we move forward.