Obviously I was not at the subcommittee, and from a procedural point of view I have two issues. I have no issue with seeing the individuals who are listed on today's agenda. That's certainly appropriate.
There are two things. One, I want to see—and I want to know if they're on the list, since we're talking about what we're doing on this Afghanistan report—the Information Commissioner and the person from the Department of Foreign Affairs who's mentioned here. I would like to see them separately, not with other panellists, and I'd like to see them first. I think it's appropriate, from a procedural point of view, that we get the rules and the regulations and the process piece and then we invite the other individuals who've been involved in the issue to come. That way, as a committee, we would understand the legal ramifications, the process piece. From a process point of view, I think we should hear from our government officials first, as we do in all the other committees I've been on. The government comes first on whatever the topic happens to be, if they're involved, and they are definitely involved on this one.
So the government officials, the parliamentary officials first. Then we ask the other folks to come. That's one.
Then second, Mr. Chair, to be fair to the government officials, whether it's the Information Commissioner or Ms. Sabourin, is that they be on a separate panel from the other people who've been involved in the issue, from a newspaper point of view or whatever. I'm sorry we're doing this in public, but I want to know what the discussion was at the committee, if that's possible—and that is possible from a procedural point of view—and whether that was discussed. Since we're dealing with a report, I don't know from a committee point of view what I need to do to at least put that on the table.