Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Ouellet wrote this motion before we had the deputations today, and it's interesting that the motion actually is more applicable with respect to what we heard today in terms of varying opinions on sustainable development and the balancing that takes place in terms of trade-offs of economic against social against conservation. Mr. Ouellet should be somewhat satisfied that he sees this process more today than we have up to now. That is why he moved the motion.
I see it as a process motion. It simply says that we should attempt to be balanced, as Mr. Harris has said. The only word I would have changed here...the analytical framework encompasses a balancing of objectives, and there are always trade-offs that have to be made and decisions made to that. I don't think you can ever really give equal consideration, but you can in process. You can in terms of the kind of input you want to have. I think that's what we heard today.
Therefore, I see the motion as an affirmation of the way we should approach not only the oil sands, but also energy strategies and other issues that we are going to turn our minds to. I think it's just a reaffirmation of what we in fact are trying to do. I don't think it's redundant or academic, but from time to time you have to enshrine your first principles in your process.
Thank you.