Thank you, Madam Chair.
Like everyone else, I was surprised. Everyone has known since last week what we were going to do today. Normally, the parties discuss these sorts of things, but this comes as a surprise. It's out of the blue.
What Ms. Vandenbeld just proposed seems reasonable to me. I think three meetings is enough. I also think our usual procedure for selecting witnesses works, so I don't see why we would change it.
I am in favour of both parts of Ms. Vandenbeld's amendment. This being such an important issue, I think it's a good idea for the committee to spend three meetings on it, as she proposed. That's one more meeting than the initial motion called for, so it would give us more time. Of course, we should keep the minister's name in the motion, since the main reason the motion was put forward in the first place was so the committee could hear from him. He is directly involved.
The amendment is perfectly reasonable. By holding three meetings on the issue and hearing from the minister, we'll be able to get to the truth. Each party can recommend witnesses it feels are a priority.
For that reason, I support Ms. Vandenbeld's amendment.