Thank you, Chair.
I'm not going to belabour this too much longer, but again, if Mr. Johns' argument is that this committee ought not to be interfering, well, we're not interfering. Our job as opposition members is to hold the government to account—at least, with some opposition members, it's to hold government to account; with some opposition members, it seems, it's to hold the government up.
Yes, it's a nation-to-nation discussion, but that's the way democracy works. We hold that government to account. Taking away this notion from the motion, as I said, undermines that compelling argument for the minister to appear.
If Mr. Beech suggests that the minister is available—and I'll take him at his word—I suppose he could probably get her on the phone right now and put her in the committee room as we speak. However, that would be an unreasonable thing to request.
Thursday was not unreasonable, but now we've moved it until the 20th, after the break week, with no assurances for certain that the minister will find her way here.
In good faith, so that our witnesses understand, these things do happen from time to time, regardless of who the governing party is.
I would be more than happy, Mr. Chair.... Our three witnesses today, if we do run out of time, would be more than welcome to join in at a future committee meeting on the same business. I would welcome them to come back and at least be part of the question-and-answer portion of a future meeting. There is no reason to suggest, other than taking a little of their time, that they would not be welcome to this committee. For any member to suggest that this is stalling testimony that we wouldn't like to hear is pure balderdash. It's simply not true.
We have three very knowledgeable witnesses before the committee today. However, Mr. Chair, the one knowledgeable witness we want to hear from is the minister, so let's get on with that and get this done and make sure that she comes to the committee.