Mr. Chair, I have a couple of things.
One, I think it's important that we hear from François-Philippe Champagne.
Thanks, Michael, for making sure that this was included, because I think it was an oversight.
I think we're allowing ourselves to blow this thing up unnecessarily now when we start to add witnesses who are important witnesses to talk about public safety matters. When I was on the public safety and national security committee, we had CSIS officials in to discuss cyber-attacks. That's a really important conversation, but that's not the conversation we're having here in the context of this motion.
The importance of a narrow focus here is accountability so we understand what happened and ensure that it will not happen again. Network resiliency is ultimately the responsibility of the CRTC and the industry minister, similar to the FCC in the United States, which I would say would be an important witness in this context, because it's squarely on point.
I think, Mr. Chair, if we deal with it, maybe it makes sense to bring in the public safety minister if we hear testimony that would change my mind. At the moment, I much prefer very focused—we're talking about two meetings and two meetings only—conversations with Rogers, the CRTC and the industry minister. We can have a conversation with other witnesses that would make a lot of sense, and I would say FCC officials would make a lot of sense, but I think we're starting to expand the scope of this unnecessarily if we start to add other individuals at this point who aren't narrowly focused on the task at hand: How did this happen, and how do we make sure it doesn't happen again?