I just wanted to add that I actually have said from the beginning that I don't have a problem with discussing this issue in the House. The question is whether we do it on the basis of just the PBO report or whether we allow the full study that's been done in this place at this committee to go to the House. I think that the last two comments that have been made exemplify exactly why we need the full report from this committee with all of the evidence that we heard from different witnesses to go before the House for the debate, because none of what they were talking about was actually what the PBO report includes.
The PBO's report, the one that is being proposed to be sent to the House, is actually really quite narrow in its scope. The issues that were just raised by the last two speakers were the types of things that would be included in the full study with all the witnesses' evidence that we heard.
This isn't about whether we have a debate about TMX in the House of Commons; it's about whether we have a debate in the House of Commons based on one of our witnesses and one report that will be included in the full study, or do we go ahead with the full study and finish the report, put that to the House and then let people argue whatever they want—plus, for, pro, against, whatever. You would at least be arguing based on everything that we've heard, all of the witnesses who took their time to present to us and all of the testimony.