Thank you, Chair.
I'll just pick up on a point that Mr. Bezan made, which I think is really important, with respect to tightening the scope of the study. In the spirit of collaboration, while I would like to ensure that I'm able to have my motions studied, I would also like to make sure the issues the opposition feel are so important are also studied. Mr. Bezan is absolutely right that we have to narrow these to the scope of what this committee is all about.
I read the original 106(4) letter that went to you, Mr. Chair. It talks about a whole bunch of things that I think are out of the scope. We are not here to talk about processes with respect to how IRCC is working or what the function of Roxham Road is or what the procurement processes have been in this respect, whether or not this is a good use of resources, or whether or not there are enough resources. The letter indicates that we have to make sure government is open and transparent and resources are being used effectively.
I think we're okay to keep things within that scope and, in the interest of ensuring that we have enough time for other studies and are not just saying, over so many meetings long, the same things again and again, I will perhaps seek to amend the motion as presented by Mr. Villemure for the removal of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship as a witness. I agree with Mr. Bezan that some things may be being studied in other committees and that we need to be cognizant of duplicating certain work. I would propose it—the removal of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship as a listed witness—as an amendment to the main motion, just to make it tight and bring it within the scope of what we're doing here in ethics. That's in the spirit of collaboration with Mr. Bezan and to try to get done concretely what Mr. Bezan has said he would like us to do.