All right. I'm not sure whether my colleague was bored of or convinced by the representation on medical cannabis, but we can move on.
The next part of the motion talks about the recent layoffs from the bureau of pensions advocates. How could we bring a motion today after hearing uncontroverted evidence from the only witness we heard today that there have been no layoffs and that there was a provision in budget 2023 with respect to additional staffing for the bureau of pensions advocates, essentially to deal with the backlog, that it was of a fixed duration, and that we've arrived at that date and are now reverting back to the state of steady operations?
It's quite unfortunate, actually, that Mr. Freeman didn't get a chance to complete his answer with respect to the allegations coming from the Association of Justice Counsel, the group that represents the bureau of pensions advocates. It's unfortunate that he didn't get the chance to answer that question when I posed it to him, because we ran out of time. That's probably my fault for not managing the time appropriately, but I was foolishly thinking that the rest of the committee wanted to hear from the witnesses instead of showboating.
In any event, they didn't, so what we're left with is that the only testimony before the committee on this is that there have been no layoffs. We haven't been given the opportunity, because of the timing of this motion. I understand the urgency: It appears that the window is closing on the chance to pull stunts like this.
Madam Chair, I'm going to cede the floor now. All of this is to say that I look forward to hearing the amendment from the Bloc Québécois, if it is forthcoming, and to hearing the views of others with respect to this manoeuvre.
Thank you for the time, Madam Chair.