That is the motion I wish to discuss. I was waiting to hear Mr. Poilievre's arguments in defence of his motion. He mentioned the fact that, of all the witnesses that appeared before us, Mr. Drouin was likely the only one who could have shed light on the whys and wherefores of the decisions that were made.
Having attended these meetings and listened to the witnesses who testified before Mr. Drouin, I am still convinced that we did not get the answers we in fact wanted to hear. The witnesses avoided certain questions and did not provide, in particular Mr. Drouin, very clear answers to our questions.
Some witnesses told us that losses will undoubtedly not amount to about $4 million, as Ms. Fraser estimated they eventually would. However, I feel that it is a matter of principle. How is it that such a decision was made despite the fact that a lease had already been signed? These questions went unanswered. In light of that fact, I agree with Mr. Poilievre's motion.