Fair enough.
I am not going to give you a reading of the transcript of the subcommittee report, because you had a representative of your party there who can brief you.
However—I'll also answer your question—I will tell you that the subcommittee considered this from the access to information point of view. We thought it would be best to begin at the beginning, and therefore we thought we would ask the two people who made the access to information requests of the Department of Foreign Affairs to appear first so they could tell us what they did, when they did it, what response they got, how they got it. We thought it would then be appropriate to call the official from the Department of Foreign Affairs who is responsible for answering access to information requests. That's Madame Sabourin.
So that, we thought, would be the logical way of proceeding, to start with the people who made the access to information requests, find out what they asked for and what they were told, and then find out from the departmental official who was responsible, what the department's response was, how, etc.
With due respect, I don't consider the Information Commissioner to be a government official. He is a person who reports to Parliament. And we did discuss the Information Commissioner. I believe he's on the list to be a witness. We also discussed what we thought he might or might not say. We invited suggested witnesses from all parties, and there were people at the steering committee who made some suggestions, but that does not preclude other people from making other suggestions.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has advised the committee that Madame Sabourin will be available to the committee the week after the break. So she will be here on Tuesday, assuming we proceed with this report in whatever fashion we have to proceed with it.
If you want to proceed in a different way from what this motion sets out, then you have to suggest an amendment to the motion.
I'm going to recognize Madame Lavallée.