Then why don't we do that?
I'd like to come back to Mr. Harris's point and the parliamentary secretary's point. We refer to reviewing the funding for this program; the government has been doing that for many months, so I wouldn't bring a motion to committee to ask the committee to ask the government to do something it is already doing.
This motion calls for the government to reinstate full funding for the program. I'm not prepared to go with that wording, but I would be prepared to split out the motion from the preamble. If the committee finds some of the wording too colourful on the wind power production incentive program, take out from the preamble, “the Minister of Natural Resources had frozen the popular, effective wind power program. As a result of this decision the industry has been thrown into...”, and then split off the motion from the preamble. I'm quite happy to do that.
It's the same with the EnerGuide program. I didn't give my remarks on the EnerGuide program, but to talk about the need for officials--we've had officials here speaking specifically on this particular program on a couple of occasions. I spoke to Mr. Paradis about perhaps bringing the Treasury Board and Finance Canada officials here. He tells me that they're not able to do that, or won't do that; I'm not sure. Frankly, we have enough information to deal with this motion, but I'd be prepared to make that compromise--to take out a couple of colourful wordings and to split off the motion from the preamble.
On the EnerGuide program, would it be in order to take out the words, “for political reasons” and just say “the minister has terminated this effective and efficient program”, and then separate out the motion?