Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we just want to make it clear what we are suggesting here. You can talk about speaking for the government, of course, and I think we all recognize that none of us on either side of this table are doing that. We are trying to determine what action this committee will take on this particular issue. We've seen the motion and we are sympathetic to the intention behind it. We've said that.
We acknowledge the fact that we heard from Mr. Bonnell and that we heard from ACOA. ACOA I think made some comments that we shouldn't ignore. One thing they did say was that as their mandate has currently evolved over the years, this kind of funding no longer fits within it.
We think it's prudent for us to ask the government to reconsider its decision, because it's going to have to go back. It's not like here's the mandate and it fits within it, but they decided not to fund it because they didn't get enough points on the system. It's not like an infrastructure application. It's not like that.
ACOA has told us that it no longer fits within their mandate. Really, we're asking them, the government, to find another way around that. We haven't put “ACOA” in this motion for that reason. There might be another way around that. That's why this wording has been chosen.
I should also point out that Mr. Bonnnell in an article from yesterday in the Telegraph-Journal acknowledged that ACOA has been a great supporter of the centre over the years, and that he respects the funding decision that ACOA has made in this case. I'm not sure why he said that, but he's on the record as having that position.
If the opposition members would be more comfortable with putting a timeline in place that reconsidered the decision within 30 days or so, I think Mr. Weston or one of my colleagues would be happy to move a subamendment to change this amendment.