Thank you.
I appreciate what Mr. MacKinnon says. It's quite funny when we say we've been trying; I've been trying for five years. The Liberals have been blocking the study for most of those years.
Maybe it's just semantics, but it's not the NSS that we owe it to taxpayers and Canadians to review; it's the actual procurement process, the cost overruns, the delays and everything else. I think all parties agree on the idea of the NSS. I think we want to look not at that but rather at the actual procurement process.
I appreciate Ms. Vignola's amendment, but again, with all the other items that we have as well as our previous discussions from before prorogation, this is going to go well into the new year. We could spend 16 meetings, I'm sure, just on the JSS or what's going on in Irving right now.
I don't support the motion period, because I think it's too restrictive with regard to what we actually need to do and also does not address this looming chance that the polar icebreaker or new icebreakers for the Great Lakes, etc., could get offshored any moment now, as we've seen. I think we're doing a disservice to taxpayers but to the shipbuilding regions as well if we don't get it right. I don't think this motion does that.