Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm just looking at the subcommittee report here and thinking about this. I don't think we're prepared to abandon the studies we've already started. I think we do have to finish reports. Even in the amendment there's room for flexibility as we move forward. For the consolidated study we anticipated maybe three meetings. This study contemplates four meetings. We might be able to do it in three, because what we're trying to do is bring the attention of the country to this issue in a greater way than has been done by Mr. McGuinty's appearance today. I think that's a laudable goal.
I think any study of the kind that's referred to as an additional study, as Glen is talking about, certainly can't be done between now and the end of June—a whole new study like that, particularly one of that extensiveness. We don't have to drop everything to do this. If we manage to finish the 15 minutes and have to meet again, maybe we can come up with some agreement between now and Monday to have some flexibility.
By the way, I'm not sure it's going to take two full hours for drafting instructions on the Levesque study. That's something that I wanted to throw in there. It wouldn't hurt to get some briefing for an hour on Monday if we think we can deal with the drafting instructions in an hour.
Maybe I'm being wildly optimistic about that, Chair. You would know better than me, but I think if there's some room for flexibility, we can do what's on this subcommittee agenda, plus have at least three meetings—and they don't have to be all in a row—on the topic presented in the motion. I think it's very valid for us to do what we can to draw attention to this—we'll see whether someone has any way forward—and certainly to ensure the public is well aware of the threat that's been posed.