Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to Mr. Lauzon. I truly second all that he just said there. I think there is a road forward and that Mr. Lauzon just provided that pathway.
Again, I know that time is ticking. Christmas is around the corner. The fact of the matter is that we need to finish this study. I think we really have gotten the major themes and major points in putting together recommendations to go to the Government of Canada. I like to think that I'm not going to envision myself having another discussion around this table with an amendment to the motion, or whatever the case may be, for two to three extra meetings—but I fear that's where we're going.
You know, we talk about a disservice. I think it's a disservice to all the stakeholders who have come here and those who are watching at home whose daily lives are impacted by this and are not here. I think that's doing a disservice. But I don't question anyone's motives around this table. That's the difference. I think when we get into situation with motives, of why people are doing what they're doing and what they're opposing, it's a difference in approach. It's a difference in philosophy. If we use that as the baseline for moving forward, I think we'll probably be in a much better place more quickly, quite frankly.
Mr. Lauzon also talked about the next study that we want to do. It is on ports, and it is tied to this study. To get that report off is important. We need to do that soon. We need to do it ASAP, in fact. Then we need, in my opinion, to get to ports. Why? It's because we're talking about major projects. We're talking about major investments in Vancouver, Montreal and Atlantic Canada. Bringing people in from everyone's constituency here, I would think, or thereabouts, is really, really important in regard to the investments that are going to be made and the leaps that we need to make as a nation to be masters of our destiny in terms of the economy, supply chains and so on and so forth.
You know, it is a bit déjà vu, but it is something that no one relishes and a difference of opinion. If we can really and truly complete this absolutely essential study for everyone involved—the owners, operators, communities and victims—I think we'll be in a far better place. Right now, again, it seems like every session this is what we're looking for; this is what we're looking for; this is what we're looking for. I think at heart of it, that's part of the problem. Part of the problem is getting to that end point so that we can start something new. That “new” is recommendations that will go to people like you—people in Transport and ESDC—and not, by the way, just the federal government. Throughout this study, we have seen time and time again that provincial responsibilities as they relate to this topic are not necessarily efficient in a lot of areas—I'm being kind.
We are here again. We'll continue to have this discussion, because there is a fork in the road. Mr. Lauzon pointed out some of the areas in which we can do a deep dive, find some resolution and common ground, move forward, get this study completed and not just say that we've completed it and put it on our checklist. It is absolutely essential to the country, to each province and each MP. I do not discount any MPs' passion for this and the importance of this, no matter what province and no matter what territory.
We're not quite where we need to be and I think we can be in due course.