I have a couple of clarifications to what Mr. Thériault said.
He read the motion on the PMPRB. I'm not sure that was the motion that was ultimately passed, because Ms. Rempel Garner made an amendment to that motion that we passed. I specifically recall that it was that we wanted to get the submissions in by a certain date so we could then determine who the appropriate witnesses would be to call before the committee, which hasn't yet happened.
I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say this: He's completely wrong when he says that the study was to be completed by January 1. That simply is not in the motion. Those words are not there. If he had wanted this study to be completed by January 1, he could have said that in his motion and we could have passed it, but we did not.
I want to be clear: The motion does call for at least four meetings—