I think she was the one who lost on that deal.
You're right. Let's get back to the motion. My honourable colleague proposed some changes, and I would still argue that they're friendly changes. This does not change the outcome of the motion by removing the adjective “profound”. It's very misleading, very prejudicial. Let's take it out, plain and simple.
Changing the last sentence only makes sense. If we invite witnesses who come here and show support, whenever those witnesses come...our motion has already negated their testimony to us because it says we only want to hear from those who object. Do we not want to hear from those who actually agree? I would argue very solidly that a lot of people actually do agree with this. Those would be the people in the communities who don't know what their future is.
We have an agreement. We have a good agreement. We have an agreement that will put this industry back on its feet, that will put $4 billion back into their pockets. They can expand. They can make business plans for the future. Let's accept this motion with these amendments and move on.