Okay. In fairness, I want to point out that the chief human resources officer isn't just a new appointee. There's actually a new administrative office function there, an amalgamation of other functions, so it's not just a new appointment. Clearly there would be some time necessary to get it up and running.
I'll leave this to members. In the event that members consensually feel she should be called before the summer, they can express that.
The second item has to do with our upcoming meeting on Thursday. This is on the subject of stimulus package spending. This meeting was designed to be informational, really a preparation meeting for the Tuesday when we come back after the Easter break. I had even thought that we should go in camera, but the two witnesses from the government departments identified have indicated that they would prefer not to be in camera. I suppose that if they're going to say something, it might as well be on the public record; they don't want to get into a difficult situation. This is what they've requested, and if members want to respect their wishes, that's fine.
In any event, we will go ahead with the meeting. There's one thing I'd like members to accept: that the meeting should be seen as informational, and not as a meeting intended to address the issue of accountability of the witnesses. The accountability issues can be dealt with at the subsequent meeting that will happen on the Tuesday when we come back, if there are accountability issues. I would like colleagues to agree in advance that the witnesses would be treated in the usual respectful way, as assisting the committee to prepare for the subsequent meeting, and that if there are questions for which there are not answers forthcoming or available or whatever, we simply let it be or take note of it. If questions are asked and need answers in the subsequent meeting, they can be addressed there as a matter of accountability.
Can I seek agreement to proceed on that basis for this Thursday's meeting?
Madame Bourgeois.