Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Sherbrooke for the question.
Indeed this is a matter of transparency, as I alluded to in my speech.
As long as there are issues that divide the House, then the opposition motion makes perfect sense.
Today we are not talking about the decision in and of itself, because we know there is a process to be followed. We are making two simple requests that will benefit the public and investors.
As my colleague indicated, we are talking about transparency, public hearings and clarifying certain rules and certain definitions.
Once again, when we talk to business people and investors, they tell us that having clear rules is good for them. It is also good for everyone to have clear rules. That is what we are advocating today.
Canadians across the country think that is important. The other MPs from Quebec, Alberta and the other provinces and I can honestly say that everyone thinks it is important to have transparency. It cannot be bad.
As I was saying, it can even be good for the government because at least it would be sure, when making decisions, that it got everything it could out of the consultations and that it applied the rigour that is needed in handling matters as complex and sensitive as this one.