I appreciate your view on that, but one of the witnesses was for legal advice from the House. It did not pass. So if there's another way we can get legal advice that I don't know about.... As Mr. Martin knows, I was not at that meeting. I did not get that legal advice, so he can say that another committee member was there, but....
So I was not opposed to getting that legal advice. The issue is, are we doing it in the right order? That's all this is. Are we being transparent by letting everybody know who we're calling and when?
This amendment would also allow us to properly plan the panels that would come, so that we would deal with the Information Commissioner and the individual from the department, mentioned in today's amendment, in a manner where we're not pitting them off against the other. But we would allow a very professional approach to this item.
So I'm supporting the amendment that's in front of us. I'd like to see a recorded vote on it. I think it's important that the public knows where we're going.
I would like to be able to ask questions of the individuals who are listed here. Based on what's in front of us in the fourth report without the amendment, I'm not sure there is another meeting. It doesn't say anything about future meetings; it just talks about this particular meeting.
Through the amendment, this would indicate that there would be future meetings and other witnesses coming. Obviously those witnesses aren't here today. They probably would need proper notice to get here. One witness who we thought might be here isn't going to be here.
Those are my comments. I'm supporting the amendment, and I'm going to be calling for a recorded vote.