There's a lot to unpack here, Chair.
I will just say that Mrs. Shanahan, in her concluding comments, said that she doesn't support motions that would prescribe when the meetings occur, but her colleague Ms. Khalid just put forward a motion saying that a study should happen immediately. Her colleague proposed a motion mere minutes ago that did the exact thing that she's decrying.
Look, the motion by Mr. Cooper seeks to invite, not to order, any of these people to appear, in spite of Mrs. Shanahan's objections and her thinking that we need to worry about the police feeling victimized by receiving an invitation from the clerk of the committee. I think they will probably be okay if they get that invitation. For any of the folks on here who haven't expressed an interest in appearing, they might just decline the invitation. If it would perhaps be useful to the chair and other members of the committee, I'm quite sure that we could make an overture to anyone who's interested in appearing, and they could come and appear.
It's also standard that we would, just on the study, be able to invite witnesses based on the agreed-upon number of slots per party. If the idea is to just take out all of the witnesses and that all the parties can submit names of witnesses to appear, I think that's great. I would be worried that the Liberals might invite someone who would feel victimized by having received that email. I think having Elections Canada and the folks Mr. Cooper named, including the Edmonton police, come would provide us important context. We've had witnesses, including a minister and his business partner, come to committee and cook up some whoppers about what has been going on.
It speaks to the.... I hear Ms. Khalid ask if it's lying. I'm not sure if Mr. Boissonnault is lying. Perhaps he is.