Thank you.
I'm going to say this because some people would say that I'm capitalizing on the committee's time too much: We have had months during which an invitation was made multiple times by the clerk. That was to invite former minister Freeland and the Minister of Public Safety to come here on BC Ferries. They have not done that. It was the decision of those responsible not to come.
If we do the subamendment Mr. Lauzon made, we are, in essence, directing the analysts to begin drafting a report while we still have an open floor on the testimony. To me, that is inconsistent and incoherent. I understand that Mr. Lauzon wants to be as courteous as possible to his colleagues. I understand it, because that's what a good colleague will try to do—invite them to give them another opportunity—but they declined multiple times. We're at the tail end of the year, but we were dealing with this issue as early as August. I would say that the minister and former minister have made their beds and can sleep in them now.
I think we need to move on from BC Ferries in the way this amendment already quantifies.