Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I do disagree with my colleagues. I am trying to highlight various risks that are associated with the position that the colleagues opposite are taking. I'm trying to give examples of what these risks mean and how it's going to impact....
The impact, at the end of the day, is about the fact that the risk of exposure, without our initially reviewing it, is high. I'm asking that we raise reasonable doubt. Let's look at the fact that there is reasonable doubt, that if we go back and make public an unredacted document, we may run the risk of nullifying a contract that exists. We may put 2,500 jobs, plus the 1,600 jobs that are making the plant, at risk. The plant, in a week, is about ready to install the machinery. Are we ready to take that risk? Is my colleague across the aisle, whom I listened to very carefully and very attentively when he was talking passionately about the jobs in Windsor, willing...?
MP Masse, are you willing to put those 2,500 jobs, plus the 1,600 jobs, at risk as a result of an unintended consequence? Do you believe there is reasonable doubt that our publicly reviewing an unredacted contract...? There is a reasonable risk. That's going to be the issue. That's the heart of the issue. That's the heart of the amendment. The heart of the amendment—now that we know there is no labour-related ticking bomb—is the fact that we have to be responsible.