The chair has a couple of comments. This particular review, because of the way it was originally structured, is due back into the House no later than June 23. I don't think there's anybody around the table who believes that we can accomplish that task within that timeframe if we are starting fresh. At some point the House leaders are going to have to go back to the House to get an extension or a revision to whatever procedures would be there to accomplish this review.
The suggestion by Mr. Bagnell and the comments by Mr. Comartin need not be seen as mutually exclusive. It might actually be doable--no matter which committee presides structurally over the review--to have a subcommittee constructed either of this committee or of the public safety committee, which would be composed of most of the members who did the work in the last Parliament. I know they completed most of their work. We're in a public meeting now, so I'll just leave out there the question of how it happened that they didn't manage to finish, since they came so close. One of the reasons, of course, was that the House fell in a relatively unplanned fashion.
In any event, perhaps we could just leave those comments on the record now and each party could deal with the appropriate House leader and minister and make sure they're informed of our views, unless you want to send something to the minister and wait to see what comes back on that issue. Is that okay?