Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that this is a bid to be collaborative. It's unfortunate that the motion was not shared, or at least not with the Liberal members of the committee, prior to the meeting. Otherwise, we could have talked beforehand and tried to work out what should be there.
Basically, the proposal we have is that we set aside three meetings instead of six. Six seems like an awful lot of meetings for this committee before knowing where this study will actually go. If the committee wishes to have more meetings after three, the committee can always decide to do that.
There was no discussion among the three parties as to who should be the witnesses at the committee.
The Minister of Public Safety will definitely be a witness. I don't think anyone objects to having him here, but I believe the committee chair and the two vice-chairs should discuss what witnesses to invite.
The same goes for the schedule and agenda. I prefer to let the chair of the committee work that out with the vice-chairs. Afterwards, they can check when the other committee members are available. I prefer to let the chair of the committee work it out with the other parties. I don't think we should simply accept the proposal of a party that hasn't collaborated with the other two parties on preparing its motion and that wants the committee to begin the study in the next 10 days, given that most of us already have full schedules because we didn't anticipate that there would be meetings.
Mr. Chair, that is my point in a nutshell. I encourage everyone to support this amendment, because I think if we do, we'll get out of here at a reasonable time today. Thank you.