Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Then I put down, “such other witnesses as the committee, acting as a whole and in camera, decides to call”, and I've already given the explanation of that, so I won't belabour the point. But I think we ought to be making further decisions as a whole committee on who would come as witnesses, so that we are all able to be properly apprised.
What we saw today is that we were not properly apprised of who was coming, because it was sprung upon us. It's the usual practice, but it's a practice that's inappropriate. We need to be properly apprised, so we can do proper work. This is a serious matter.
So in essence, that is what I've got down here.
Actually, I missed on my list that we should get our legal counsel, Mr. Marleau, here to advise us on what we can and cannot request, and how we ought to do it—whether in camera or in public—in order to ensure that we are respectful of what ought to remain secret, while at the same time getting full access to what need not be secret, and at no point reveal what ought to be looked at in camera. I think there is a clear distinction between looking at documents in camera, collecting them at the end, and ensuring that they not be widely revealed.... In other words, I can guess at what we can do, but it's just guesswork. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not the House of Commons legal counsel.
So those are the observations I had to make with regard to the motion, Mr. Chairman.