Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There's nothing here that talks about an unlimited list of witnesses. In fact, what this motion speaks to is having the subcommittee—which is, as you know, Mr. Chair, fundamental to scheduling witnesses—meet and define who the witnesses are, what the timing is, etc.
The reality is that three weeks ago I brought forward the motion for documents, on July 7. We have had stunning revelations over the last three weeks, so we do have an important job to get to the bottom of this and to get answers.
Mr. Poilievre and I disagree on a whole lot of things, but the idea that we would end basically tomorrow, which was the original scheduling that we decided on as a committee, would be doing a disservice to the Canadian public. There are tons more questions that have arisen in the last three weeks. What Mr. Poilievre is proposing is extending the study under the agreement, if you like, or under the structure set up by the subcommittee. That's the way it should go. I'm not sure why Mr. Fraser is objecting so vehemently. It's certainly not an open book. It is the subcommittee getting together and structuring witnesses.