I just want to touch on a couple of points here. I understand that the government is using words like “noble” and “good faith”. They've proposed an amendment, but I don't think it fully reaches what my colleague is trying to put here. I have concerns about using words like “cost”, “time”, “unrealistic”. These are predisposed outcomes when we actually don't know what they are going to be. I do believe we are the public accounts committee, so I do believe.... I mean, I just find that a bit difficult. I think my colleague has simply asked to add dates to the government's amendment—we can leave that for both of you to figure out—or dates to each step of every cost overrun, and I think he has a valid point there.
Simply stating that we're doing this in good faith doesn't get my colleague closer to his goal. A statement that this is political I find hard to digest. We are the public accounts committee. There have been massive cost overruns on this, so I think it is an issue that the public accounts committee can take a look at with an apolitical approach or a non-partisan approach. I just hope the government and my colleague can find a better amendment.
Thank you.