I recognize the intent of this. I think the motion was premature, and it was honestly made before the witnesses' testimony. But as such, I might suggest a potential compromise that I think would work. It follows along with what Mr. Angus was thinking.
We heard testimony, obviously, that we have a consultation process in place. There were actual timeframes allocated to that. It was mentioned by PWGSC that consultations were going to take place in August and September of this year. Then, of course, it would be 2009 before they went to a potential RFP.
I would like to suggest that this committee, after having heard the testimony today, invite the witnesses who were here today and/or others, at the committee's discretion, to come back so that we can see two things: we want an indication that there was active participation and a consultation process, and then, of course, we'll want to see the general direction of the consultation process after that.
We want to be able to make sure that we have adequate information going forward and adequate representation from both sides of the spectrum. I think it would be incumbent upon and the responsibility of this committee to bring witnesses back after the consultation process to see if we're satisfied with it.