My last recollection was that Mr. Savage was going to deal with the motion after we got through a whole lot of business that we're in the midst of.
But in terms of the motion that talks about there being a new policy, of course there is no policy. I spoke about this in the House during adjournment proceedings in respect to question period, saying that there is no such new policy. The change was not approved by the minister or cabinet...overreached its objective, and things were not going to be applied in the fashion that he indicates.
So there is no such new policy, and certainly it's not something that should take precedence in the committee when we have other business. Perhaps for political and other reasons, Mr. Savage wants to harangue the minister. It's not something we would agree to.
It is quite clear that there is no such policy. There is no new policy being put into effect. It has not been approved by the minister or the cabinet. It's not happening and has not happened in recent months. There's nothing new on the horizon that would make it so.
So what is the purpose of the motion? I wonder about that. I think the responses in the House were quite clear, both in question period and in adjournment proceedings. I would say that Mr. Savage should either not proceed with the motion or put it at the tail end of everything else we're doing.
Certainly I would object to that motion.