I have a couple of thoughts.
Based on today's conversation so far, we've committed to 11 meetings past February 18. That would be my calculation, with Ms. Chabot's motion implying five meetings, and Mrs. Falk's motion, which is six meetings. That's not including any recommendations, I would assume. In the formulation of those reports, it's at least 11 meetings beyond February 18.
Given that, and given the time today, I have absolutely no problem with Mr. Schmale's motion. I do agree with my colleague Mr. Vaughan that perhaps referring it to the subcommittee and having a more fulsome discussion about scoping that particular study might be a good next step, given the fact that we're probably going to run out of time today.
There are also other motions that have been put on the list. There are quite a few there. I have one that I'm keen about and I think is relevant as well. I'm not moving it today, but there are quite a few other motions on notice.
Perhaps we need to think about what we schedule next, after the two studies, but is that really pressing at the moment? I would suggest not.