Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Perhaps I can ask, while we wait to receive this motion—it's at least a much shorter one that we can really keep a focus on—if I am right in understanding that we are now asking a fourth independent group to launch an investigation.
The AG has completed her investigation. It seems there was a motion for us to go back and expand or launch another investigation much broader than that; I don't know where that's gone. We know that there's an internal CBSA investigation going on. Through media and through others [Technical difficulty—Editor] led to believe that [Technical difficulty—Editor] and who the participants are. Now we are asking for a fourth investigation to be launched.
Wouldn't it be more logical for us to wait for the outcome of the two investigations—at least the one that we know of and the other one that we've heard is going on—and get the result of them to be able to assess whether a fourth investigation is required? I don't know what the basis of such a request would be without the outcome of at least one known investigation and another one that's alleged to be going on.
Are we going to now task another group with getting to the bottom of this, which we do welcome, and then extend the number of meetings we'll have for ArriveCAN from unknown to extremely unknown, and from somewhat planned, we believe, to completely unplanned going forward? Why do we need another investigation when the outcome is not out yet from the ones that are ongoing or are believed to be ongoing?
At this point, without that, I'm not supporting this motion.