Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm not opposed to this motion. My only concern is that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights seems to have done a similar study recently. That study took up a lot of time, and it was filibustered by the government and the Conservative Party. I don't want us to end up seeing the same thing here. We are already studying very important issues, such as interference in the electoral process by agents of India and interference by Russia. However, there seems to be partisanship in both cases. I don't know what the purpose of this motion is, but if it's to achieve the same result as the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, I don't see the point.
That's why I think the amendment proposed by the government to reduce the number of meetings to four seems more reasonable to me. Also, Ms. Dancho was kind enough to put forward witnesses that were suggested by the government in previous amendments. So I think an interesting consensus is emerging.
It's normal for the study on border security proposed by the Bloc Québécois to take precedence. According to the motion proposing this study, it will have priority over other studies.
In fact, I would like you to clarify something, Mr. Chair. You said there were five meetings left before the holidays. What is the schedule between now and the holiday break? Will we be able to start the study on border security?
Otherwise, I don't see any problem with adopting the amendment and the motion.