Thank you very much, and thank you to Mr. Lemire for his willingness to study this. I think he understands the importance of making sure that Canada's critical assets are protected and used in a way that benefits Canadians.
One of the things I would point out to Mr. Lemire—and I'm asking for his response—is that if we have the minister or ministers appear before us, they will also be bringing officials who will likely occupy at least one meeting. We know that they're likely simply going to say, “Hey, there's nothing to see here. We did a review and it's done and there's no problem, no threat to Canada. This is to Canada's net benefit.”
I'm as eager to hear from industry specialists in the area and from academics.
My fear, Mr. Lemire, is that we will run out of time to get a complete and full picture of what's at risk here, what's at stake.
Would you be willing to modify your amendment for it to be a four-meeting study rather than a six-meeting study? I think it's a compromise that would allow us to address all three of those groups—the ministers and their officials, industry specialists and then some academics who have done a lot of study in the area of Canada's national security.