I think what Mr. Bigras is getting at is that if we're going to have a cooperative arrangement where we try to work together to advance the cause of the environment, both on fighting climate change and on fighting pollution, what we need to know before we can get into it is, for example, the intention of the government. That is to say, if they have withdrawn this bill or said it's all up for discussion, we need to know what parts of it they're going to change. We need to know what their plan is, both on the climate side and on every other side, and how that fits in with the legislation. It must be the case, by the fact that they have turned it over to this committee, that they are unsatisfied with the original draft. Otherwise, they wouldn't have turned it back to the committee. They have asked us to rewrite.
Before we can do that, we need to know what their dissatisfactions are about and what concessions and concerns they have so we then may know when to devote our time to issues on which there's going to be genuine disagreement. If it turns out that there is agreement on points, we don't need to have so many witnesses; we don't need to go on about them so long. But we really can't go on a fishing expedition trying to guess by putting up motions and asking where you are on this without knowing the plans of the government.