Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm highly motivated to bring this to a head, and it seems like there's broad agreement from the committee to hold hearings and study this in greater depth. Really, where we disagree is on any language that presupposes what the reasons were for the termination of the project.
I think the goal is to have the hearings. The goal is not to have a motion that can somehow be used as a political tool. The goal is to get the information so that the committee can arrive at some conclusions about what the circumstances were that led to the loss of this investment, and how we move forward together to promote and ensure that we have renewable energy investment in Canada.
I think we're very close. With the subamendment that's been offered, the aim of it—if I understand it—is to refer specifically to the project. It's not to make it about tidal power in general, but to zero in on and at least include in the scope the circumstances surrounding this specific project.
I think the word that perhaps triggered Mr. van Koeverden's concerns is the word “shutdown”. Of course, the project can be shut down by the proponent or it can be shut down by the regulator. In this case, we don't know much about those circumstances, so I would offer that if we removed the word “shutdown” and simply had the name of the project—so that it said, “including, but not limited to, the Sustainable Marine Energy project”—we could probably all get together around that wording, draw this debate to a close and move on to having some hearings.
I'll offer that. I don't know whether offering it formally as a subamendment is going to raise the hackles of committee members, but I'll offer the observation that if we got rid of the word “shutdown”, I think we would be there.