I was going to say that in fairness, if there's a compromise we can work on, I'm happy to take out a couple of the more animated words. But the motions have been with the committee for about seven or eight days now and we had no indication that they might be out of order. We've had witnesses on both these programs and we've had ample time to do the research.
If there's a compromise in the wind, I'm happy to take out some of the more colourful language and do it that way. For example, on the wind power, we could say that the committee recognizes the Conservatives “have frozen the popular and effective wind power production incentive program. From the result of this decision, the industry has been thrown into disarray, putting jobs and future investment at risk. The committee calls upon the government and the minister to immediately reinstate full funding for this program.”
It seems to me every motion I've dealt with in the past had somewhat of a preamble. To say that the motion would only have the last sentence doesn't give anybody any context. I would accept, perhaps, that some of the language is a bit colourful. Do you think we could do it that way?