I find it a little unfortunate that this motion is presented in the way it is. When we discussed and made the motion that was an amendment to the NDP motion, we specifically named Mr. Schreiber in that motion because there is that possibility, ever present, of him being deported, and we wanted to invoke the ability of the House of Commons to compel him to remain and force the government to keep him in the country so that he can make a presentation.
I want to hear from these two individuals, I want to hear everything they have to say at the committee, and I want them to participate in the inquiry. But when we look at our timeframe, and if we're going to make a logical study of the inquiry, is it the smartest way to use our time and our energies to hear from these two individuals at the beginning without having heard from other witnesses for those periods? This brings us pretty well to the break when we leave for Christmas and we will have heard from only two individuals. We will not have heard from individuals at PCO. We will not have heard from individuals at PMO. Mr. Wallace indicated he was interested—was it Mr. Del Mastro or Mr. Wallace who said they were interested?--in the way the matter was dealt with that led to the original $2.1 million. We will not be able to hear those individuals. We are slotting all those spots away.
It's unfortunate that it's going that way. I have a hard time voting against it because I want both those individuals to appear, and I probably will end up voting for it, but I will be hoping that the committee has some sober second thought that if we are going to do a serious study of this matter, we do it in a serious way, and not just because two individuals attract a lot of camera light and a lot of things that they necessarily will be the first to appear at the committee for that long. I find it quite distressful that we are bringing this motion at this time.
The reason the amendment we proposed named only one witnesses--there may be 100 witnesses to appear, but we named one because he's at risk of extradition. That's the reason we named him. We didn't name anybody in the justice department, any of the RCMP, anyone from the former minister's office from one government or the other, or Mr. Mulroney himself, because they are in the country; they're not at risk of extradition.
With that, I may vote for it, but I'll certainly be trying to encourage my colleagues to have sober second thought on how we go through with this study.