Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we've heard already, the government operations and estimates committee is devoting four meetings to the subject. I wonder if Mr. Poilievre would entertain a friendly amendment to the effect that we would have two meetings on this.
I would also put to him that the list of witnesses he has come up with is in some cases very relevant and in other cases not relevant at all. The Clerk of the Privy Council, for example, was not involved in this decision. If we're going to devote time on this, I would want to hear from people who were directly involved. Again, it's a matter of hearing from people who did participate in decision-making so that we can maximize our time as committee members.
I would also draw attention to Ms. Krause. This is certainly not a personal comment Ms. Krause—not at all—but what expertise does Ms. Krause have when it comes to this particular decision? She obviously did not take part in it. What commentary can she add that will help us understand the trajectory of the process in terms of the decision and what happened and what did not? Again, I would suggest that Ms. Krause be taken off this list, in addition to, as I mentioned already, the Clerk of the Privy Council.
Thanks, Mr. Chair.