Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think the conclusion we are reaching that the minister was not directly updated by the deputy minister does not mean that the minister was not updated by her staff. That's a very wrong conclusion to reach and use as a base to call the minister to come. I don't think we have enough grounds to say that, because Madam Carruthers did not personally brief the minister, the minister was not briefed and is not aware of the situation, or that other ministers were not briefed and were not aware of the situation.
You can look at the world we are in right now. Let's talk about something that started a couple of years ago. Let's talk about the challenge we had with the supply chain and then with NAFTA, which translated to CUSMA. Shortly after that, we had a conflict in Russia and Ukraine and then in Azerbaijan and Armenia, where we opened up a new mission. Then there's the challenge we have in the Middle East.
We can look at the priorities that any of those ministers have, like the agenda of the Minister of International Trade, which is specifically on the Indo-Pacific strategy and trying to make sure that we build the strong partnerships we need in the Indo-Pacific region, or the international development minister's agenda. When we look at the agenda the government has, with the level of complexity and the sensitivity of time, even if the minister did not get briefed directly by Madam Carruthers, I don't think the minister should be called over. There are bigger priorities.
Looking at the fact that the absence of one update does not necessarily mean the absence of other updates to the minister, as well as at the priorities of all three ministers, I don't think it's justified for us to call any minister to come in at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.