I brought up those comments because they also dealt with the timeframe. It was September 7, 2004, when the Gomery hearings actually commenced. Of course, then Prime Minister Martin had the explosive details of the Auditor General's report in November of the previous year. So it was basically a year. In fairness to him, he did commit at the outset that there would be a public inquiry, but it took a lot of time to arrange it.
Without revealing any confidences, I think it's fair to imagine that there are probably not a lot of former or active judges who are jumping up and down pleading to be chosen for this role. So I think we have to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt that he is working through his options.
There are a limited number of people in this country who are actually qualified to carry out hearings of this nature. They are very complicated and time-consuming. They require a lot of legal expertise. To find someone who has the intellectual gravitas and the legal experience to head up such an inquiry is not easy. But my understanding is that they're working on a short list, and from that short list we have to ascertain if any of the people on it are actually interested in the job. It doesn't sound like a particularly fun job. That is why the timing is so important.
I know that members of this committee want to pass a motion here that is predicated on good faith. I would ask them to contemplate a subamendment that would stipulate a September deadline to begin those hearings. We have heard from Mr. Murphy that he would prefer a deadline in June.
If you'll allow me to speak to my subamendment, Mr. Chair--