Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Through you, to all my esteemed colleagues, the point I'm trying to make is around the fact that there is a big piece of information missing. That piece of information is the insight that the government and various departments had in the project, which would be a very fundamental part of a debate that we need to hold in the House. I'm not arguing. I'm not saying that we should not move concurrence. I made a commitment to Mr. Simard that I will be getting up and having that debate as part of that three-hour debate.
I have also already, during my intervention, through you, to my colleagues, talked about what points I am going to get up and have a conversation about. I want to have a conversation around accountability. I want a conversation around risk, around gating and around how these processes were approved. Why did we switch from a government sponsor to financially sponsored for the rest of the project? How do we cover all of that? We won't have those answers until we do the report.
For us to have a debate on a topic based on the PBO's report without having all the elements of this equation so we can have a very substantive and complete debate is the wrong thing to do, I think.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.