I'll try to be brief. I mainly want to talk to the main motion, not so much the amendment that Monsieur Savard-Tremblay has brought in.
I have some concerns with the idea of a third party in the sense that it would require some development of a mandate for that third party. I don't know how long that would take. If this was at the start of a project, it might take a considerable amount of time, and it seems that we have three days or something.
What I want to say is that, overall, I've really struggled with this whole study. We've been rushed both times to take all of this in, and we've had rather opposing viewpoints from both sides, naturally. I came in here thinking I was going to support a delay, but by the end of this meeting today, I really haven't been convinced that a delay would accomplish anything. I haven't seen any concrete evidence, at least, that we desperately need a delay to do X, Y and Z.
It seems that most of the concern is from 80% of the clients, who don't feel great about this. They just don't know what's going to happen, but I haven't heard how six months is going to fix that. We've heard that the CBSA has communications problems. Maybe that's a structural way of how the CBSA works, and it's going to take longer than six months to fix it. We've heard it's going to cost businesses money. Presumably, it's going to cost the government money.
I'm just saying I think I will be voting against this motion to ask for a delay. I think Monsieur Savard-Tremblay's concerns are separate from that, but I will leave it there.