I appreciate that, and I appreciate Mr. Harris's intercession with respect to that preamble to the report.
I want to reiterate, in case there's a difference of opinion with respect to why we are attempting to understand the nature of the motion and what it is attempting to do, that to my mind there are two issues. One, was there a rationale presented in the report, which would be part of our report, that would reflect on our recommendations? Whether we agree to accelerate in a sustainable way the development of the oil sands as part of a continental policy or a North American policy, that's up to the committee to decide. Second, does that rationale drive government policy?
So there are two issues, one related to what went into it under the previous government and one related to how it relates to policy development in this government.
Mr. Chairman, if we are having those people come in, then those are the questions that are part of this debate of the draft report. The only position I had suggested was that until we have the draft report before us, we won't know to ask and to then engage those people who can answer those questions.
That said, let's get on with it. I would only suggest one additional witness who you may wish to have come in. The Province of Alberta is absolutely fundamental, just as the Province of Quebec would be if it were an issue with respect to the James Bay development or whatever it might happen to be. I suggest that we add the appropriate government officials from Alberta. If we want to understand the rationale from those discussions, they were part of those discussions in that workshop, as alluded to in the report.
So that would be my additional motion.