Thank you, Madam Chair. I originally put up my hand to thank Mr. Lukiwski. I want to thank him because he was actually advancing procedural matters about why he believes this to be in order. I respect the deep amount of knowledge that he has with respect to PROC, Madam Chair, quite frankly, but what he's saying—and I just want to counter this point—is that it's inevitable that we're going to receive this order of reference, so therefore a prestudy is warranted. However, what we're supposed to be studying is why the Prime Minister, or the government, chose to prorogue. We won't know that unless we presuppose the reason, and unfortunately that's what this motion is doing. It's presupposing the reason. That's why we have to wait for that order of reference: It's so that we can then examine why they chose to prorogue. That's also why I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that we have the mandate to do this, because we need that order of reference so that we can study it in the context in which it was delivered to us.
Thank you.