Yes. I appreciate that.
I suppose, then, my appeal is to Madame Brunelle. I'm supportive of the direction and the content of the motion. I think it's important. I was going to add a question about the economic impact. I see here that we have accessibility and environmental impacts of the ecoENERGY programs. I think the economic impacts would bear some understanding.
To be upfront, I'm a little uncertain, because if we proceed with this motion and say yes to this, it would behove the rest of the members to make our agenda through this type of process, which isn't necessarily the best way to make a committee's agenda. For instance, there's a topic that I want to discuss, so I bring it through in a motion and we discuss it next week, and Mr. Tonks or Mr. Anderson does the same thing. It makes a bit of a patchwork quilt of a committee's process. It might not have any intelligence to it in the end, because we would just have a stack of ten topics that we then have to run through. I'm hoping there's some way we can include this idea into that larger discussion of what the committee heads to next--unless Madame Brunelle is suggesting that we push aside some of the other meetings that we have already scheduled to have this first. Maybe I need some clarification on that.
My main point is to say that if the committee is going to start to go through different topics, we should do those as a collective conversation. That will lead us to a more intelligent and productive agenda for the committee at large.
