I have to tell you that I'm sympathetic to the motion to the extent that if we have the election, a lot of stuff is going to be undone here. The outcome of the election could dictate which of those things lived for a further day of debate and which didn't, and they are all important reports.
The reason I'm sympathetic with this one is that we deliberately went out of our way to revisit this thing. Do you know what? All that work we did.... The crunch decision, just as Pierre has said--who made the decision and why, resulting in a $4.6 million waste of taxpayers' money in circumstances that don't pass the smell test--is significant, and I would be very open to moving it.
I hear Mr. Laforest, and it's a good comment. I wouldn't make this for a political reason, except that if an election is coming, I'd like to get them in here to answer while this composition of members of the committee is here. This is so complex that even if the next committee wanted to pick up, if it had new members--and it likely will--it could easily get lost, and the whole point would be missed. It was very complex, if you recall.
However, having said that, I say to my friend moving the motion that I'm hearing some practical impediments in terms of scheduling that make it less of a common sense decision if one started from where I am.
I'll go back through you, Mr. Chair, to the mover of the motion to find some way to argue or change what I think are good legitimate reasons why my vote, if I'm going to end up being the swing vote here, should be to stay with the current course, recognizing that my desire would be to alter.