I have a few comments. I think Mr. Hiebert is making some very good comments here. We've already moved on to something else, and I'm not sure why we're dealing with this right now. We had quite a discussion about whether we wanted to have the minister here to discuss the nuclear issues, and she was willing to come. We had the discussion, and this goes more to the heart of the original motion of Mr. Cullen. But there was no new information presented, so I don't know why he's bringing that forward.
Further to the amendment, that's precisely why she was here. She came to talk about the funding for the AECL generally and for the Chalk River reactor. The discussion was about those kinds of things. It doesn't make any sense, and I think that's how the invitation will be seen, when she's already been here to address those very issues. Now we're inviting her to come back to do the same thing again. The response will likely be, “We've done that. That's why we were there, and we had those conversations.” The opposition had a chance to ask those questions, and if they had taken it they would have received the answers they requested.
We agreed to one meeting. We had the meeting and we've moved on to other things now. I think we need to see that through.
So I'm going to make the suggestion that we table this motion until we're done our integrated energy partnership study, and then come back to it at that time.