Well, that wasn't my intent. My intent was to couple my remarks. The next item of business we have is the report. My intent was to get on with the report--and I had hoped the committee would see that--and that we make a subsequent decision as to whether the first motion, asking for this experts group and the ministers past and present to come, and whether, having had a chance now to see the report....
We haven't even seen the draft report, Mr. Chairman--the real draft report. So I just think it's premature.
I wasn't trying to use a procedural ruse or trick to evade the substance of this motion. It was more in keeping with whether we couple the substance of the motion with the draft report and then collectively say it is relevant with respect to this experts' report that said there should be an acceleration. They might have had research done that would put forward something with which we could identify in our draft report and make a recommendation. I don't think we know that at this point.
I was just attempting to allow us to get into the real issue before us, which is the draft report, and then to couple that in two or three meetings with a conscious and collective decision that, yes, a point has been made, and yes, we should have these people in and ask them, because it is related to the draft report we have.
At this point I don't think the committee can say that there is that relationship at all.