Mr. Chairman, to answer Mr. Harris's question and Mr. Trost, the issue to me is linkage. What is the linkage of the committee--what the committee is charged with and accountable for--to the decision that is to be made or that has been made?
My only point would be that we probably should have had a little input before the decision was made, on the basis of what the substantive linkage is. I had the mining association come to see me, as I'm sure many of us did. They talked about the absence of a geophysical survey, an up-to-date and modern technology, to map the natural mining landscape of Canada. They pointed to the geophysical and the geological survey that they felt was extremely absent and elementary. And just by association, they did talk about the technology offered through RADARSAT-2.
To me the only question is that if we had wanted to have a motion with a preamble showing the linkage on the substantive side, we probably should have done that before the decision was made. But the decision was made. So in retrospect, I think it's consistent with the role to say that for these reasons--the updating and the very important geophysical and hydrological issues we're dealing with--this is something we should have, and the minister was right.
I would hope that we would just pass the motion, and that you, Mr. Chairman, would carry that message to stay with it, because for what this committee is substantively charged with, he did the right thing.
It's as simple as that, to my mind.
Thank you.