Mr. Chair, you would chair a subcommittee with a spirit of balance and goodwill, and I would certainly participate in the subcommittee with the same spirit.
This motion was adopted by a previous committee. Now, I don't know if we're saying that the previous committee didn't know what it was doing, but it was adopted by a previous committee.
I would like to respond to Mr. Bigras. I understand that he would like to study the oil sands more closely, and I am not against that idea. However, I feel that there is a specific policy question here and that it should not be taken over by a broader topic. I would be open to the idea of starting the study by placing an emphasis on water and then, part way through, we could discuss broadening our scope. Once we have looked at the topic of water, I would not be against expanding the study, but perhaps we should start with the first part and then proceed from there. We may soon enough come across other issues we should focus on.
In response to Ms. Duncan, I included the Government of Alberta for two reasons. First, because that province has a more favourable outlook on the oil sands. So I included it in the interest of having a balance. Second, waterways are managed jointly by the federal government and Alberta. We do not want to encroach on Alberta's jurisdiction, but we want to hear what these people have to say. If they do not want to meet with us, we cannot force them to, but I think it would be in their best interests.