When I look at it, I'd say that the whole purpose of the TMX study was accountability. I talked about the process. What we are about to suggest would completely bypass the committee process, which is very structured, goes step by step and, traditionally, is what we've done.
Let me explain to you what we are bypassing. The way I look at it is that, first of all, we are ignoring all the testimonies and the witnesses who came in, to a large extent. Second, we are ignoring the idea giving the government an opportunity to respond. Then, what we are saying is, “Let's take a PBO report as a base.” The PBO, Mr. Giroux, was here, and he was very clear about the scope of the report and about what he was trying to do during that report. He drew a conclusion that the TMX project is going to be sold at a loss and, therefore, we need an emergency debate using concurrence, given the environment we are in. Fundamentally, that's the issue.
The fundamental issue is that the government hasn't had the opportunity to look at our recommendation, which comes as a result of a report—which we could start working on very quickly—or to give us other information that it has. As a result of Standing Order 109, within 120 days we have to have that concurrence debate. This motion doesn't stop the Bloc from having the ability to move concurrence and have that three-hour debate. What it allows for is making sure that the information that all the witnesses provided is taken into account.
We had an opportunity to look at all of those and came up with recommendations. Actually, when we looked at the first amendment that MP Dabrusin brought, I thought we had a solution because it was about the recommendation, about going to the House and about the report, so that we'd look at and develop the recommendation. From there, we'd move on and have that debate in the House. If we come out of this gridlock soon, this debate could go on as early as the first week or two when we come back.
What is the advantage that we have? The advantage is that we have a set of requirements. By the way, it's 120 days on the calendar, so by the time we come back we'll have the government's response. We know the great work the analysts are going to do. We're going to have a report and be in a position to have a very fruitful conversation in the House, whether as part of the opposition day motion or of concurrence for three hours. Is that not correct?
This is trying to bypass all of that. Why are we trying to bypass a process that is very well laid out, has a very clear timeline and a clear ask for accountability? It's 120 days. Everybody knows, because of the clarification made by the clerk, that Standing Order 109 means that the government must, within 120 days, present a response to a report. We are ready to go to the report.
The government can already start working on it because we know one of the questions we are going to ask, which is whether this project could be sold at a profit and not at a loss to Canadians. We already heard the answer from the PBO that, if you look at the project...point of view, based on those risk factors and the value that they're putting into it right now, there might be a $3-billion loss. However, if you look at other economic downstreams, the Government of Canada and Canadians are actually making money.
I'm just going to park that. Let's go back to why we are trying to bypass this process and why we are trying to force a concurrence debate based on only one element of a testimony in the House. That's where I think we are moving from an accountability agenda into a political agenda, and I really don't understand why—even if we want to do a political agenda—we are doing that.
What is there to be gained? Are we informing Canadians with more data or are we potentially presenting and looking at this from a lens that is only a PBO lens with a very limited scope, as the PBO has addressed? If it's not an accountability and it's political, I'm having a problem understanding, because I thought we were coming here to do good work—