Mr. Chairman, I think that when Mr. Cullen drafted this motion, there were two things. One was that at the last meeting of the committee, we had the Commissioner of the Environment's report in which she stated that officials from Treasury Board and from the department should come before the committee to answer questions with respect to some of the substantive programs. You recall that we had a bit of a discussion; there were no motions passed, but it was very clear there was a consensus that officials should be here.
I think that Mr. Cullen was presuming, when the motion was drafted--and I don't mean to presume that I can infer what he had in mind.... I would have drafted this motion against the deputy who would be coming in, and I would have used the motion as a guide for questioning, and not only as a guide for myself but as a guide for members of the committee, about the EnerGuide program and about the wind power programs.
The fact is that this whole process has been truncated. The drafting--if I'm correct in the inference I've drawn--and even the process of extracting information and validating the inferences I'm drawing from the motion have been truncated by the fact that we don't have officials here.
Now, surely we can understand that there is an issue with respect to the two programs, which was raised by the Commissioner of the Environment. It would seem to me you have one of two choices: one, you refer this back to Mr. Cullen to redraft it, against the fact that at the next meeting we're going to have officials here; or two, you can redraft it right now, and we can have a consensus with respect to the two substantive programs, very simply, that we ask the appropriate officials to reinstate the programs. That can go for debate at the House, but I would suggest that it will be debate in the absence of questions that can be answered by officials. The committee will have to determine whether it wants to delay this particular proceeding.
My suggestion would be that we make an effort at redrafting it very quickly and then poll the committee to see whether they're satisfied that there's enough information to discuss it. It's always up to members of the committee to defer if there isn't enough information, or if there are inappropriate inferences and so on, and to table the motions. That can all be done, but nothing can happen unless we make a decision based on accurate assumptions.
I think my assumptions are correct, and I hope Mr. Cullen agrees that this debate would have been very focused had we had officials. We don't have the officials. Thus, Mr. Harris is saying, look, I can't extract any information; I can't accept those inferences as correct unless I have officials here.
So I think just to be practical, pragmatic, and fair in terms of process--because this is going to be a long committee--let's be clear in terms of the processes we're putting in place. In the absence of the officials, let Mr. Cullen see if he can redraft it. If we're satisfied, let's discuss it. If we're not satisfied that either the drafting or the information that we have can be brought to bear on the issue, it can be tabled or it can be deferred. There are a number of motions that can be had. If we don't do something, we're going to be at an impasse, and I don't suggest that's healthy for the committee.
So my suggestion would be to let Mr. Cullen take a crack at some redrafting here. We can decide whether it's appropriate to go on. If it isn't, then we have some motions to table it, and we have the officials in, and we have at it at the next meeting, which will be Thursday, Mr. Chair. So let's not bend ourselves too far out of shape on this one.