Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
No one on the committee questions that. Given the discussions that have taken place, all the parties represented at the table want to hold those meetings. Everyone wants to get to the bottom of what happened and get answers to the important questions that were raised, including about public safety.
That is why the motion, as brought before the committee, refers to at least two meetings. There is, however, the idea of remaining open to taking a deeper dive into the issue when we return in the fall. That may be what you're concerned about.
It may very well be appropriate to hear from the Minister of Public Safety, but the two meetings may be why the two parties agreed on the three witnesses proposed. I just wanted to give you a bit of context.
My understanding is that Mr. Kram's amendment to invite the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has unanimous support. However, the matter of inviting the public safety minister, as Mr. Champoux and Mr. Boulerice are proposing, is still outstanding.
Go ahead, Mr. Boulerice.