I can answer Ms. Damoff's questions. Those are fair points.
I do believe that the motion I brought forward that started the investigation into India's interference in Canada stated “no fewer than six meetings”, so it's open, and my amendment to the motion brought forward by Mr. Motz simply uses the word “concluded”. It's totally up to this committee as to when we feel it's concluded. I agree with you. There may be more witnesses that we want to hear from. We always have the ability to extend our meetings for that, but I do think there are other things this committee needs to look at.
Foreign interference is absolutely important, which is why I have prioritized both the Russian study and the Indian study. I would disagree. It's not part of the preamble. Everything after the word “that” is part of the actual motion, so if we adopt this, that's not a preamble; it's actually a directive that we have to complete these two before we move on to everything else.
I am putting priority on those through the amendment. I do agree with you that they should have priority, and I will support that. I also cannot ignore the fact that, in many small communities right across Canada, there are serious concerns about mental health and its intersection with public safety. That's why I would also like to see us, in a motion, commit to studying those at some point in the future.
I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair.