Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We're not often in a position where we take accolades for actions done in the past, while we were wearing a different hat.
The motion is really quite inoffensive. It says this committee would make a recommendation, and government is always free to say yea or nay. In the wisdom of this committee, perhaps the decisions made in the past with respect to the composition of the council, to which the government would be going for advice, might not have been as inclusive as the start-up members expected it would be when they looked around the table and saw themselves and said they should be the council and we said fine. A lot of things have happened since then.
The suggestion that you might have another interest at the table or at least another dimension of the industry at the table is not an offensive one and it's not one that's negative or takes away from anything. All in all, I think the motion really says, from the perspective of the committee, from what we've learned over the course of the last year, the last two years, whether we have had ongoing conversations with every one of the council members or whether there are people who now see that council is having an impact on public policy and would like to be a part of that dynamic, it's secondary. The motion really says, why don't we as a committee recommend that the government expand the horizons of the composition, and then the government can make whatever decision it wants?
So I think as a motion it fulfills a good initiative, and I'd support it.