Mr. Speaker, I can only agree with a recommendation like the one made by our colleague from Miramichi.
However, in terms of his comments regarding the relevancy of my speech, I will simply tell the member for Miramichi—I do not know if he was with us at the beginning of my speech—that I did in fact establish a link regarding the content of this proposed amendment, which is designed to exempt a group from being held responsible for site decontamination. This is an issue we are most concerned about.
However, we must therefore realize that the amendment before us is a result of the decisions that the government has been taking on energy for a number of years.
As I said in my speech, those decisions are questionable at the very least. If at least it had been acknowledged that very questionable decisions had been made in the energy sector and if it had been decided to change direction for the future, we could feel reassured. Unfortunately, this is not the case. This is to a certain extent the thrust of my speech today.
As regards the proposal made by my colleague from Miramichi, I obviously support it entirely. I believe that we cannot study this fundamental issue in a hasty way. We must give it all the time and attention needed. Who is in a better position than the members of the Standing Committee on the Environment to study in detail the implications of this amendment?
I obviously support this proposal and I hope that the members of his party will back him up and support the proposal.