No.
The testimony referenced in the discussion in the first hour of this meeting talked a lot about reasonable deadlines. I think one should acknowledge that this request was made during the testimony that took place at the last meeting. When it came to the motion that was passed, I think it was made very clear to this committee that it was to adjourn debate on the study, pending the production of some of the very relevant documents that will allow this committee to chart a path forward. Getting these documents, I think, is vital for the future work of this committee.
That request was made at that meeting. I hope that it was taken seriously at the time. Certainly it would suggest a bigger issue if it wasn't. However, I think Mr. Villemure in his motion has rightly said, as we've faced some challenges in this committee before by not having absolute clarity in things like document requests and whatnot.... I appreciate the discussion around timelines and translations. That's all very important.
I think it's quite reasonable to expect these in a time frame that would allow the committee to make a determination on a path forward. The next steps, of course, will be to determine whether the committee is satisfied, and the report is produced and things move on. If there is something that requires more digging into, it's up to the committee. All of us around this table are collectively able to determine that path forward.
Being reasonable, we shouldn't expect that the maximum deadline is always what's required. As I mentioned, I hope the request was initially taken seriously. This information should be available in an expeditious manner.