Thank you.
So your intention is to complete the prorogation study, but you believe that in order to do so, the timelines must be removed.
Maybe the clerk can help us better understand the timelines that are in place according to what's been adopted through Mr. Blaikie's previous timelines. Would the committee then be obligated by those timelines to submit a report by June 11? I think that clarifies things. I do believe, from my conversations with all the members in this committee, that it's everyone's intention, just as Mr. Nater wants, to complete this prorogation study and to see it tabled.
Through discussions in this committee, that's what I gather as well, but we can also hear from the members who have their hands up.
First, can you clarify this for us, Mr. Clerk?