Thank you.
Thanks to Mr. Kurek for the clarifications, or at least the openness to look at this.
I think the purpose of the motion is to say that we're not finished yet, that we'd like to see some follow-up and have a follow-up meeting to see the work that is in its early stages right now. By the time we are able to do some follow-up work, we might possibly have some more answers.
I was struck by the word “failure” in the motion. I thought that was a judgmental word. I wonder whether there's a word that might be suggested to substitute for it. “Seeking” might soften it. In saying that they're “seeking” to provide appropriate answers, we at least give some acknowledgement that they are working on getting answers. If there's an amendment that could be suggested, that might be one to be considered.
I think the goal is to say—and I think we mentioned this during the committee hearings—that we would like to have a follow-up discussion with Imperial Oil and with the regulator to see what has been done in six months' time so that we're not just leaving it to the wind.