Thanks, Chair.
As I said earlier, I'd be interested in others' thoughts on this. At the end of the day, when I look at the list of witnesses in the motion, six hours will accomplish those witnesses and then some. If there is a long list of additional witnesses pursuant to the basket clause there, then so be it. Maybe you can correct me and say that you're expecting this to be 12 hours or 18 hours, but at the end of the day, it looks to me like two meetings, as currently scheduled, gets us through that list of witnesses.
As I said before, I don't really understand what the rationale is for expanding it further. I recognize the importance but not the urgency here. To my understanding, in terms of Michael's initial explanation of the importance of this motion, his point is taken: We are to question the reason for the delay, when there was a red flag in 2018 and the administrative investigation was initiated in 2019. That's worth looking at, for sure. That's important. It's not urgent, though. Then we are to address the delay in document disclosure. I was one of the Liberals to vote in the House for disclosure. I value transparency and getting to the bottom of that, but again, it is important but not urgent.
Why are we jamming our scheduled House resources...and for what? I don't see it at all. We do two three-hour meetings. Then we can have a conversation. If we need more, we add more.