I think so, and it probably does touch to some degree on Michelle's main motion, but I'll be brief.
Number one, Don, I think you deserve a glass of water or a large bottle of water after that, so I won't take up too much time.
We've been talking a lot about the issues contained in the 106(4), and I think we have agreement, or we're almost there in terms of coming to some kind of conclusion here, which is really beneficial. What I normally did in the past, when I taught at the University of Calgary, or elsewhere, in Cape Breton, was I wanted to try to sum up the main components of what I was hearing.
Don and Michelle, please correct me if I'm wrong. I know there's a lot in what you said, Don, but I want to maybe bring it down to just some modular points. We have one PMPRB meeting for three hours. Following that we would have three meetings with the witnesses for the first hour, and then I believe the deputy ministers for the second hour. For these meetings, each party would select one witness. I don't think that's changed. In addition, we would have one three-hour meeting with the minister and one meeting with another of the officials in the motion.
It seems like we're really trending towards that right spot, from what I'm seeing. After I finish speaking, which will be in a few moments, I am going to read Don's amendment to it, to see if it captures what we're hoping to achieve here.
I don't know if I can ask this to Don, through you, Chair. Is that basically the meat and the guts of what we're talking about here?