I would continue simply to say that I would be against this motion to delay voting on this as a potential study to be scheduled. I think it's a topic that deserves studying.
We have shown in this committee how we are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We have interspersed a variety of studies, starting one and continuing with other studies. I think it's suspicious to say that we should delay a vote on this until after another study is finished, when we don't even have a firm date on that study. I think we're mixing apples and oranges in this. That's my fourth metaphor; I apologize.
What I like about the motion by Dr. Fry is that it puts a stake in the ground for this committee to say that this is an important issue to study. And it's not the only issue we'll study. There will be other motions. We have a number of notices of motion on the books right now. Once we get a number of motions, then we'll have a meeting. We'll look at what the priorities of the committee are—to do what, when.
However, because this does not have a time limit—it does not have a deadline set on when the study would begin or would end—I think it's appropriate for us to dispose of it quickly. So I would not be supportive of a motion to delay a vote on it. It's an unusual motion to adjourn until after an unknown date. I'm not even sure I would have agreed to that kind of a motion. Also, adding a substantive part to that motion, with respect to the number of committee meetings, I don't think is appropriate at this time within that context. So I will be voting against this motion.
There were many comments in the lengthy speech that Mr. Genuis made that I could comment on, but I'll refrain, hoping we can quickly dispose of the motion to adjourn conditionally, so we can get to the main motion quickly and get it done, and put it into our ideas for a potential work plan and leave it until the future.
Thank you.