Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Thibault, if you follow your own logic—you made your point—we should not be supporting the amendment. The chances of having Mr. Schreiber here next Tuesday, when we aren't even out of here on Thursday at one o'clock, are slim to nil. Let's be realistic. The realistic time would be next Thursday that he'd be able to get here. That means we wouldn't be able to start our study based on the amendment until after that happens, but that wastes a Tuesday.
The motion that is in front of us, not the amendment—I'm voting against the amendment—is so that we can call the professor for next Tuesday if Schreiber is not available.
Pat, you may be shaking your head; you may know the penal system better than I do, but I think it's going to be hard. We can start with that first witness who's looking after the public inquiry, which all the opposition parties were asking for, which this government granted. We will have him first. Then my expectation would be that Mr. Schreiber would be available by....
We'll probably have to give the system at least a week to be able to get him here. So I would suggest that we vote against the amendment, we vote on the main motion and pass the main motion, we start the process next week, we have the two witnesses that we discussed earlier, later next week and the week after, and the very first person we'll see, if Mr. Schreiber is not available on Tuesday, which I think is very likely, will be Dr. Johnston from the University of Waterloo.
Thank you very much.