Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to comment because I felt a little concerned by my Conservative colleague's last comments. While my colleague is saying that we do not want an independent public inquiry, he is proposing to delete paragraph (b) of the motion, in which we reiterate our call for an independent public inquiry. That is a square circle, a contradiction within a contradiction. It is quite funny.
On the contrary, the NDP has added something important to the debate, namely the fact that, after this important meeting, the party leaders will have had access to confidential documents and will be able to express themselves, just as Mr. Johnston and the Prime Minister were able to do. This puts the leader of the Conservative Party, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and the leader of the NDP on an equal footing with the Prime Minister and the special rapporteur, enabling them to have access to really important sensitive documents. Then they will be able to speak up and take action, in the same way as the special rapporteur and the Prime Minister. This is a step forward and a step in the right direction.
The NDP believes that this golden opportunity should not be blocked by a prerequisite that, in our opinion, was abusive, whereas, in the first sentence of paragraph (b), we reiterate that the committee wants to tell the House that we still want an independent public inquiry. It would be rather contradictory for the Conservative Party to want to delete a paragraph that reiterates our desire for an independent public inquiry.