We haven't yet adopted the motion for the Kearl study, and we don't need permission to use testimony from other committee meetings in a report, but seeing that if we do go ahead with the Kearl study this relates directly to our water study and we in fact had probably envisaged having a segment on the Athabasca River watershed, it would make sense.
For clarification purposes, I think it makes sense to maybe amend the report to say—can we do that?—that any evidence and/or testimony in a possible study of events involving Imperial Oil in the Athabasca River watershed can be used when drafting the report of the water study. Anyone...?
It's already sort of in there, okay, but we didn't pass the motion on Imperial Oil. Before we adopt this, we have to move the motion.
It's mentioned in the report of the subcommittee, this idea of having a study of these events in the Athabasca watershed; however, adopting this report doesn't adopt the motion. It just allows debate on the motion or introduces debate on the motion, which we would vote on after adopting this.
Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.