There was plenty of time over the course of 15 meetings to move a motion and propose witnesses. Mr. Barsalou‑Duval just noted that we've held six meetings on the subjects to date, and I thank him for the clarification. I knew we hadn't spent 15 meetings on this, that it was more like 10-ish. Still, why wait until the last of the six meetings on the subject to bring this up? Why not do it at some point during the first four meetings? It just occurred to someone that this situation could be exploited for political purposes, and they decided to go all-in. Sure, let's bring the victims' families in, but let's do it with dignity, have them appear separately and not with other witnesses so that they don't have to face representatives from trucking companies that are potentially at fault, which could be upsetting.
Then Mr. Barsalou‑Duval said that we should call a half-meeting or a separate meeting to keep the list of witnesses as is. I didn't react. Why not two and a half meetings? We could have two meetings to have all the witnesses on the opposition parties' list, and then we could cave once again and agree to hold a half-meeting to hear from the victims' families, but in camera. That would prevent those who would be tempted to take advantage of people's emotions and put that on social media from doing so. Is that too much to ask to protect the families' dignity?
They could make important recommendations to add to our report to move things forward. Can we do that in a proper and dignified manner? That's all we're asking.
Saying that we don't want them as witnesses is false. I'll repeat it to be crystal clear: It's false. It's a complete distortion of what we told the committee. Maybe it's an attempt at disturbing the committee so that we don't have to face reality. And the reality is that we've been saying the same thing ever since the beginning: We want to fix this issue and find solutions that fall within our jurisdiction. We even want to go further than that.
I agree with you, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, that we should step on Quebec's toes for once. Just acknowledge publicly that it's your intention. I don't mind at all—I'll help you. We want to offer recommendations to provinces and territories to address this. The only way to do that is to agree on the motion and add two meetings. If you drop the request for the production of documents and propose the addition of a half-meeting, we'll say yes. I haven't talked to my colleagues, but, just by looking at them, I'm sure that if you were to do that, we could move on to another topic.
There's no shortage of topics that the committee could study. We could talk about ports, for example. By the way, there is good news for Quebec and the port that's located between our ridings. Our next study will require a lot of work, and I believe we'll both have a lot to say on the matter, Mr. Barsalou‑Duval. There's a lot of room for improvement in that area. The investments are unprecedented. Millions of dollars have been invested in the workforce. Can we finally move on to our next study?
If we could only pass this motion, we could move on to our study on ports. All we're asking is for this motion to be passed, to remove the part about producing documents, to have a conversation and move to our next motion about ports. It's a matter that is not only of interest to Quebec. Your respective ridings all have ports. There are ports everywhere in Canada. Maybe not all of your ridings have them, but there are ports in Conservative ridings. There are some all across Canada.
It's a study we need to be serious about. Regardless of that study that we want to get under way, we must remember the speech that the Minister of Finance made in the House of Commons in which he said that committees had better get ready because business is about to pick up.
Be prepared. We'll be there for you.
He clearly said that recommendations would be made to committees about areas of study, including some that fall within the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities' portfolio. Sounds great to me.
Now, we won't include that in the resolution or in the motion. All we want is to talk about these two mandatory meetings. I haven't spoken with my colleagues about it, but I'm sure that our colleague will agree with adding a half-meeting.
You wouldn't mind adding a half-meeting to hear from the grieving family, would you? I knew it.
I'm sure Mr. Baker agrees with us. That way, we could meet our objective. Oh come on, it's not hard—