To differ from some of my colleagues around the table, I do believe there is an absolute need for this.
I wasn't here when there was apparently an agreement on a framework, but if I had to sit down and look at all of the witnesses who have come before this committee, I would venture to say that 80%, if not more, talked about the economics and only touched in a very obtuse way around issues dealing with the social consequences or the environmental consequences or the conservation aspects. In fact, when they discussed those issues, they only looked at them through the prism of the economics around the tar sands.
Whether it's an affirmation or not--although that would seem to be the general consensus--it is still necessary to refocus us as a committee in terms of bringing that balance. I don't see anything whatsoever out of place about the motion. I see it as necessary to refocus us in terms of our comprehensive approach.
I haven't heard the social impacts. I really haven't. We all know there are some, and we're not going to really see them in the day we're going to spend on the oil sands. Conservation and those other issues have only been touched upon; people just touch on them. We've hardly seen any expert come here to talk about conservation or environmental protection--no expert, as I would see it.
I think this is absolutely necessary.
Thank you.