If I may, Mr. Chairman, let me assure my good friend Claude that when I proposed this motion, there was no intent or ill will to publicly hang, as you describe, Mr. Khan. But where I find, maybe for the first time, that I disagree with my colleague, my good friend, is why do we need...? The question then becomes, why don't we bring in one military procurement company or supplier, and leave the rest? The whole idea of committee work is that we bring in witnesses from all sectors so that the committee can hear all sides and draw some conclusions. He has just been added as part of this overall Afghanistan issue—or Middle East issue—if I may say, and I am asking the committee to consider this motion and support it with the condition that we're seeking knowledge and information, so that we can do as I described earlier.
When we invite a minister, when you're in opposition or we're in opposition, we don't bring the minister in to lynch him in any way. I recall the issue of Agent Orange. Our good friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs today, Mr. Thompson, indeed came in without the intent of lynching Ms.... I forget her name, but we managed it well. Today, as I said, we're making comparisons. We bring in witnesses, in the plural. Why? It's to hear different views. As I said in my earlier comments, I stress that we're not asking him to go beyond where he can with his presentation, and in no way are we jeopardizing the Prime Minister's initiative and the confidentiality of Mr. Khan's mission.