Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm in full agreement with the argument that was made by Mr. Johns, my colleague. Even though we share certain sentiments, obviously, about the cost overruns, and though we have significant concerns and questions about some of the expenditures of the Governor General, at the end of the day, we're putting the cart before the horse here.
We need to do a study. We need to complete the conclusions and the recommendations of the study that's before us. That study is only half finished. We still have work to do. We haven't come up with all of the recommendations. We haven't approved it. There is much to be discussed.
Again, I just heard a couple of seconds ago my colleague across the way saying that we don't need a study. It's the same argument that underlies the notion that we don't need a briefing on national security to understand national security. I mean, this is how you govern. You get briefings, you look at facts, you conduct studies and you make an informed decision based on the information that you've gathered and the debates that you've held.
I don't quite understand coming in with a motion—again, as my colleague said—without even giving the Liberal side a heads-up that this motion was coming forward. That's not collaboration. That's not working together. That's not trying to get to the bottom of things. That's not trying to make an informed decision.
Again, for that matter, I fully support what Mr. Johns has brought forward. He has once again brought forward a pragmatic, responsible suggestion, which is to complete the study first, and then talk about the next steps in terms of what rules and frameworks need to change for the operation of the Governor General's office. I will be voting against.