No, I just wanted to say that obviously, as a committee, we have important questions to ask Mr. Doan. The next logical step in this progression in the investigation and the work of this committee is to hear directly from Mr. Doan. Obviously, we're trying to be sensitive to the fact that there are some serious medical issues that have come to light as well. However, we do believe that is the next logical step, to hear directly from Mr. Doan.
Therefore, we support the motion to bring Mr. Doan here to committee.
I don't believe that part (b) is necessary at this stage. Let's take this step by step, which is, let's hear from Mr. Doan himself. Let's obviously communicate at the meeting what the repercussions are. If there is additional co-operation, that can be clarified during the meeting, but I do believe that at this stage we should take this step by step.
The next logical step is to call him to this committee, but there is no requirement at this point to include section (b) in this motion, so I'd like that section to be struck.
At the same time, we know that there is important work that Parliament is doing at this point, especially in relation to debating the budget and debating important legislation, and we don't want to tie up the work of the House, which is laser-focused on those issues.
Again, we are supportive of calling Mr. Doan to testify in front of this committee. We think that is the logical next step, but I would ask that part (b) be stricken from the motion.