For the benefit of Mr. Proulx, who wasn't here, we did talk at the beginning that we would listen to the options that the analysts put forward today, and in far more of a way of filling in some members—as much as half of the committee was not here during the study—so they could have an idea of how it flowed and what some of the witnesses said. It's in no way comprehensive as to what was said. So we said we'd get to that point.
I also challenged the committee at the start of the meeting to not make a decision until we also hear about the Referendum Act, hear from Mr. Chong, and also start a little bit down the road of the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendations as to priorities for this committee.
Today is a piece of information that we have now in our heads that the committee is still seized with—we still have to finish this work in one way or the other—but I would like the committee to not make a decision until it has heard all three or four of those pieces. Then we can put them on the scale and balance where we need to go.
Suggestions have been made on a subcommittee and on a number of ways we could move forward.
Mr. Proulx, you are correct, there were at least a couple of witnesses. Senator Hogg has been avoiding us about coming, for some reasons--