Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In listening to this motion today, it’s become clear that there’s still a lot of work that needs to be examined and considered before we can accept some type of judgment on this particular motion. So looking at the particular numbers before us at this moment, it looks as if it won’t pass.

I want to stress that many Members who are speaking in favour and against it are raising very important concerns. Some people are speaking against the motion saying that they will vote against it. They’re highlighting their caution, but they’re still echoing support for environmental protection. It is not in contradiction to have these types of views. I think it’s good stewardship in the challenge that we balance here every day.

If this motion fails today, it ends here, it ends this issue, it shows no further light of day upon it. It is a legitimate concern. I have not heard one person speak against the motion’s principles, which are we want good stewardship, but many people also spoke about the bogging down of opportunities before us. The challenge is, of course, like anything, to find the right balance. Information was still flowing to my office this morning to fully understand the impacts of this.

In some cases that I’ve seen thus far, we will see little effects that will streamline a process that seems almost ridiculous, and in other cases there can be real issues at risk. It’s about understanding the full issue before we pass judgment. I should say for the record, I’ve supported many environmental initiatives and my record clearly says this, but I do have concern with the way this motion is presented and written at this particular time. Therefore, I cannot support it.

Before I conclude, I do believe strongly that we need to fully understand the impacts that we are agreeing to. I’ve often said that we have to understand what questions we’re answering before we agree to answer it. We need to understand the issues before us before we challenge it. Sometimes, as we’ve heard from many Members, there are ways to do things and some of the changes are going to be very positive. So we can’t just jump in and say no, we don’t like this. We need, again, a good dialogue, good understanding.

In the spirit of dialogue, I wanted to wait to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak, speak their views and raise their issues on behalf of constituents. It’s a principle and a tenet I feel very strongly about.

I strongly support the rights of those people to raise issues, even at times when I don’t agree with them. They will often say that I will stand by them to ensure that their voices are heard and I will defend the rights of all, even those I disagree with, to the end of my last breath.

Now that we’ve heard from everyone on this side of the House that wanted to speak at this particular motion, I’m now going to move a motion to end debate on this particular issue. What this does is it ends the debate before a verdict, a verdict that stops it in its tracks, because I feel that if this motion fails, the issues raised that were of concern puts it to bed period.

Work still needs to be done. If there was one clear message today, it said we need to still review this issue.