Speaking on the motion, first of all, I don't see the list of suggested witnesses in the motion as exhaustive. I think it's inclusive, but not exhaustive, so there can be other witnesses added.
Mr. Bergeron has said that this is meant to be a study on a reported humanitarian crisis. I saw this motion only when others did, today, before this meeting. I would like to talk to the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the Red Crescent. I would like to talk to the UN. I would like to talk to authorities who have an understanding of what the humanitarian situation is, what the blockade is about and what its effects are. Is it a political issue that we are hearing about from people outside of Nagorno-Karabakh? Is it a humanitarian crisis?
I think there needs to be at least one witness who is from a humanitarian agency and who knows the humanitarian situation in the area as opposed to giving us a political understanding of what's going on. If we're really going to do this separately from the geopolitical, we should do it from a humanitarian crisis aid perspective. This means getting the usual group of witnesses to tell us what is going on, and that could be the World Food Programme.
I don't have an answer as to who they should be at this very second, because that's what we do. We do some research on this to find out who would be the best witnesses to help the committee understand the crisis that Mr. Bergeron has importantly brought to us. You bring the crisis to us, but now I think it's also respectful to make sure that everyone on the committee does their work so we can look at what witnesses should come.
With that point being made.... I think Mr. Hoback is correct that there is not an amendment on the floor. Mine was withdrawn, so I would simply add to this amendment that there be a deadline of Friday January 20 at noon for additional witnesses from all members of the committee.