I think the way the motion is written and then amended is opening up the discussion to see what the situation is and how we might improve in the future. I don't think there's a conclusion there, other than that we don't have a project, which is a fact.
Having a discussion in the environment committee is a good place to have it. It does relate to Fisheries and Oceans, which might also have looked at this. It could also be for Natural Resources Canada, but because we are trying to make alternate energy projects in Canada successful, I think it's a good thing for our committee to look at the reasons a project isn't successful. It might be a legitimate reason, but I think we would know that once we've had a study to see whether there's anything we could be doing better or differently.
We might come to the conclusion that, no, everything was done properly and the reasons this project was cancelled follow a proper course of governance, but I think it's very good for us to look at it as a committee. It's three meetings and it does take away from other time, but I think that because it is in the media and because people are discussing it, it would be good for us to get some facts on the table.