I think this is a matter of public interest. Much too often in the past we have seen cronyism on the Liberal side. We don’t know if that’s the case this time, but the situation is definitely suspicious.
I think we have a duty to analyze things and to call witnesses to answer the questions my colleague has raised. I’ll wait and see if there are more comments before I turn to some other aspects, but I agree with the principle.
The only point I would like to raise is point (b), which proposes that the “study be given absolute priority over all other matters before the committee”. I don’t know if the clerk has already invited any witnesses to the meetings. I think meetings have already been scheduled.
I would therefore like to amend point (b) to let the witnesses who have already been invited testify. That way, we won’t have to start over all over again. Otherwise, I completely agree with that.