Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In response to Mr. Perkins and Mr. Zimmer, this motion then is really not necessary. What they are doing, of course, is signalling to us the priorities that they put on the number of motions that they put forward.
I don't think committing to a schedule—even though it could be changed—is necessary at this point. After we conclude Ms. Barron's study that's already on the schedule we've agreed to and before we launch into Mr. Arnold's, we could certainly sit down then and look at the rest of the calendar for the spring session and decide what comes next. We need to have that discussion not just based on emergent things that come up, but to ensure that the voices of all of the participants in this committee are heard in a reasonable balance and fair order.
I don't really see the value of Mr. Perkins' motion except to signal to us what's important to the Conservative Party. Those are good studies and we can get to them in turn, but they shouldn't necessarily stack up and dominate our schedule going forward for the remainder of this year.