Thanks very much, Chair.
I'm not going to support the motion. I want to explain why.
They've signed an arrangement to say they will have things at a specific time. I accept them at their word. I'm not going to impute a motive as to why we're trying to elevate a timeframe beyond an arrangement that's already been committed to. Some might think there's some political motivation to that, and I'm not going to suggest that. I'm not, because that will be a question some might ask.
But it strikes me that this is not urgent. This is a function of their having already committed to a timeframe; they have a process in place. And I haven't heard a compelling reason why it needs to be expedited for the sake of some days. We're already at November 18. They've committed to doing this in the next dozen days, so I'm not sure, frankly, that I understand what the difference between that dozen days and somehow making it nine or ten days would be, unless there was a motivation I just don't understand. Maybe Ms. Coady could explain it.