My understanding—and I was just clarifying it with the parliamentary secretary—is that the minister is currently asking for more information, with also potential alternate sites that could be considered. I don't know why we would go down the road of calling people before us to discuss just one particular site. It seems as though there's a process in place to allow due course to take place and for the proper measures to be presented so that a proper decision can be made.
Personally, I'm inclined to not support the motion, because I have difficulty with the fact that we seem to be doing work that the minister's office is already doing. Also, we're talking about one particular site when the minister has specifically asked for alternate sites as possibilities too.
That's my own feeling on it, but I'm looking forward to hearing what other people have to say.