Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Trost, for bringing this forward.
I want to make a quick comment. Mr. Richards is correct to say that formally PROC appoints the committees, but to say it's with some input from the whips is a little bit of an understatement. I think it's better that we go back to Mr. Lukiwski's opening concession that this is a whip-driven process, and that's the reality—whip-driven, and by definition, of course, leader-driven.
You welcome the idea that this might provoke more robust debate on committees, and I do indeed welcome that. I see this as a motion that gets us thinking. On its own merits, we should deal with it. But then what else could follow, or indeed, what could possibly be part of a recommendation coming from PROC in the context of this motion?
The whole question of the membership of committees has come up in the questions. It's all well and good to say that your system would potentially produce chairs who may be elected to chair positions because of recognized expertise, etc., but there is still the mechanism for the committee itself to remove the chair. You talked about how that might go back to the House. Would it not be a good idea to consider a reform whereby once committee members are appointed to committees, at least for a sitting, if not for a whole Parliament, they're then not removable by the whip, so as to deepen the autonomy that you're seeking to achieve in the committees?
I wonder if you see any link between your proposal and the idea of a more robust committee membership at the same time.