Yes, and thanks very much.
Truly, this is where I want to come back to the clerk, because I recognize that we're talking about two very distinct things.
When we're talking about electoral reform and what that looks like using a citizens' assembly, that is, when we want to look at where we end at the end of the day, that is one track.
The other track is what we're talking about by doing, truly, an outreach. It's a variety of other options that we have to do here as well.
I guess for me, I know that we will table reports. A lot of times, we'll table a committee report followed by supplementary and dissenting reports. Maybe the clerk can share with me on this, and then I will take the floor back. I look at these two items as very separate. What historically has been done when a committee does one study but has two reports? To me, it just seems like we're going to be calling witnesses in, and if this is what the government wants, we're going to be really focusing on that report. We'll ensure that all of the witnesses are for that report.
I guess my thing is that I feel right now that we're trying to split hairs here. Why would we not focus and put all of our intentions into something that is important to Mr. Blaikie and then water down the rest? Why would there not be two separate studies, rather than two separate reports on one study? I just want to see, historically, if that has been done.