Yes, that confirmation will be helpful too. I apologize if I was notified and I somehow missed it. I do apologize for that.
In terms of the committee's schedule or calendar, I have not heard any official opposition from the last meeting or between the last meeting and today, but I remember that the game plan was that the subcommittee would come back with a proposal on what the upcoming study schedule would be. Now, we are here at an emergency meeting, discussing the possibility of doing this emergency study.
I have to be honest. Between the two studies, the one from my NDP colleague and the one from my Conservative colleague, I'm more interested in the one presented by my NDP colleague, because it's quite relevant. In terms of urgency and what could directly impact Canadians, my constituents included, I think that study is much more relevant. If we're going to have an emergency meeting next week to do an emergency study, we of course have to go through the process of voting, but my preference would be for doing the one that impacts my constituents more directly.
I'm happy to have another meeting next week, and to meet, but I just want to point out the fact that at the last meeting we agreed to a game plan to have the subcommittee look at the schedule.
My last point is that I was hearing from a Conservative colleague that there were some assumptions made, that if the government somehow, through our recommendation of a study, blocked the sale of this company or, going back, if they blocked it, it would guarantee that their product would be used in Canada. I think that's a big assumption, because at the end of the day these products are mined in another country by a decision made by executives, not necessarily by Canadians. I think we have to be very careful with drawing the assumption that just because we've blocked the sale we can guarantee that these products can be used in the Canadian market.
That's all. Thank you.