Thank you for that latitude, Mr. Chair.
The bottom line is that this was the best course of action for taxpayers in the current context. The agreement in principle, as the members can see.... Going back to the motion, I know the motion is calling to see all the clauses. It's been public since July 22. Again, I invite my colleagues to go online and read it. It also explicitly preserves the 2012 crossing agreement between Canada and the State of Michigan, which are the two joint owners of the bridge, as we expect the net revenue to be modest or even negative at the beginning.
This is a good-news story. Even with a good-news story, my colleagues are incapable of cheering for Canada. That is pitiful. That is very sad. Instead, we're going on a wild goose chase to try to create a story that paints us as not having Canadians' backs. More importantly—I'll get to my bottom line, and then I'll let my colleague take the floor—the full cost of the bridge will be recouped. The sooner we open the bridge, the sooner we can start recouping those dollar amounts.
The opening of the bridge provides certainty for the thousands of SMEs that are relying on an additional trade corridor and that want, in these very uncertain economic times, certainty. I'm sure you have businesses in your ridings. We do. We hear it all the time. We can deal with what we know. We can deal with the tariffs. It's hard, and we can deal with them, but we need certainty, and this provides that certainty.
What would they have done differently? What are they putting on the table? How long would they be willing to not provide that certainty to the Canadian SMEs that rely on this?
With that, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.