Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I too want to echo some of the thoughts of colleagues that I've heard around the table this morning and also in previous meetings. This absolutely deserves a debate in the House sooner rather than later instead of waiting for the report to come out and then whatever will come after that.
I think voting down this amendment and just passing the motion as it was originally written would make the most sense. It would show how seriously the House takes the issue of the government losing taxpayers' money. It would show the seriousness that the House should take on building resource projects and getting our resources to tidewater and the need for the private sector to be the one to do it, not the government.
I think there are so many different points that can and will be brought up in that debate. It feels like even three hours wouldn't be enough time, to be honest, but three hours is better than no hours. So is having it happen sooner rather than later instead of meeting four months down the road from now. A lot can happen between now and four months from now. I think it would be good to get this debate happening now.
I look forward to voting against this amendment and defeating it.