Thank you very much, Madam O'Rourke.
Colleagues, I think we've had a good and thoughtful discussion. Members have had the opportunity to put into the public record how they feel about this. I'll call the question, although I think we have unanimity on this.
All those in favour of the motion as amended...?
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Colleagues, before we break, we need to have a brief conversation about scheduling. In anticipation of this, I asked the clerk to do her best to have us start on Monday, with the first meeting occurring then, the second meeting occurring Tuesday and the third meeting occurring the following Monday. This would simply displace our current trajectory of the productivity and DIS studies and move them back with the proportioned date.
The issue is that it always depends on the witnesses and their availability. We need to be a bit flexible.
In the event...and I will communicate openly and transparently with the representatives from each party, but it doesn't afford much time for the clerk to get witnesses. While we're together, I just wanted to quickly say that we will do our best.
Madam Dancho, Monsieur Ste-Marie and Mr. Bardeesy, we will have to make a determination, potentially—if there's only one witness, for example—on whether we hold off and have our regularly scheduled meeting on Monday or if we hold that first meeting but are now turning it into more than three meetings, most likely, because we will still have a significant number of witnesses to make available.
My suggestion is that we ask the clerk and analysts to do their very best to get us a critical mass for Monday and we begin this study. We should have enough people by Wednesday and the following Monday, but if we don't, then I'll work with the party representatives. That's my suggestion.
On that point, Madam Dancho, go ahead, followed by Mr. Falk.