Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the government did not do.
She used the analogy of a lake, saying we should be able to see the bottom before jumping in. I am not sure that analogy totally works here, incidentally.
The problem is that the government has done no due diligence to confirm whether it was possible, whether there were any solutions or whether such a proposal was even a good idea. It simply dismissed it outright.
Why did my colleague say it is important to see what is at the bottom of the lake, when she did not even bother taking the time to do so herself? She did not even look at what was there. She simply decided to stay on the shoreline. Why did she not check to see what was at the bottom of the lake?