I am sharing with you that I am open to, with due cause—which I haven't had presented in the very short period of time that we've spoken—revisiting part a). However, I'm not interested in having this motion split up, and then not having evidence that, in my opinion, is substantive enough to support part a), but is used as some sort of gotcha.
I would suggest that, if the Conservative side would be willing to set a) aside until after we do b), then the testimony of the two people referenced in b) would give me adequate information to determine whether or not I would support bringing Alexandre Trudeau here or not. Just to be 100%.