I think we can revisit that. I think what we do is start those studies and see how many witnesses come forth and see how long we need. I don't think we need to pigeonhole ourselves into the five meetings. I think what we can do is start those studies, because there will probably be a great public interest, and then not set an end date. We can actually go back into either a subcommittee or the general committee to address that if we don't have a witness list, if it dries up or whatever.
So my proposal is that we just start to get at these things, and then we can address that, depending upon the interest level we're receiving.
I've been here before with the Investment Canada Act. It has been studied by this committee in recent years, and it was very much.... We did an issue on national security. You can get the research back on that. I brought that back in 2003, I think, because it was about the Investment Canada Act, how non-state democratic governments could buy Canadian companies. We were opposed to that. We had a lot of witnesses at that time.
I think we might find that five meetings wouldn't be enough anyway, so my motion will keep it open-ended, and then the committee can be the master of its own deliberations.