My understanding of the second part was that—again, this is a way of our also exerting a little bit of our own independence as a committee—to move forward, we would have to start to deal with this issue as soon as we come back in September. If we do it as part of the Emerson report, it becomes convoluted, whereas if we just say we are going to focus on this issue and do whatever number of meetings are required to table a report, it shouldn't have to take a couple of years to do this. If we start in September.... I realize we have lots of other important issues, but this is a very important issue as well. If we were to have August 1, 2019—well, you and I both know how slow things are around here—it would drag on until 2019. Having the August 1, 2017 date there actually puts the feet of the committee to the fire to do the work that is required.
I would have preferred agriculture to deal with the issue, because we have a lot of items that we want to deal with, but because it deals with interswitching specifically, it is a transport issue, not an agricultural issue. That is exactly why we have it in front of us.
Mrs. Block, do you have some further comment?