Mr. Chairman, I just quickly want to add a little.
I want to say that it was hard to sit here and listen to people say that we were bringing forward a motion in bad faith. We followed all the rules. We certainly followed the committee rules. I was told I couldn't bring the motion forward; it had to be a regular member. The regular member brought it forward and then left, so it came back to me; but she is back again, so it's back in her lap again.
We tried to do our best to follow all the rules. I think the intent of the study was to try to find out what happened and how it could be fixed.
I feel very content that I was able to sit here and join in, because I heard the president from Imperial Oil and I heard the regulator speak. As a person who lives downstream from some of the activities that are happening in the south—and everything that flows into the water flows across my doorstep—I probably heard more in those presentations than I have heard in all of my life from those people who do that to make their living.
I also heard them say that more investigation needs to be done. They need more answers. They need more tests, more studies. It just made sense to me to have them come back and fill those gaps and provide the information they will have gathered, probably, over the summer.
I would appreciate it if that is something that could happen, because I think we're all on the same page here. It's just that maybe we didn't use the proper wording, and if that's the case, then maybe we need to revisit how we worded it. Maybe a little bit too much emotion was put into the drafting, but it wasn't the intent to upset anybody; the intent was to try to to get all the information we could so that we know what happened and how they're going to prevent it from happening again.