Well, I know the witnesses who are coming will definitely try to be helpful to members. It's been my perception that there's a great lack of information, misinformation, about the arcane world of authorizing government spending and how it happens. Not only is that true generally, but in this case the process that's being adopted is for the most part unprecedented. But it does follow rules, etc., and I thought it would be helpful for members to be acquainted with all of that before we get into the meeting when we come back from the break. If members feel otherwise, they should speak and let me know.
Otherwise, we'll proceed with this as a meeting that could have gone in camera--and it still might. Keep in mind that it is our decision whether or not the meeting is in camera, not that of the witnesses. In this case they've asked that it not be in camera, and if members are okay with that, we'll proceed on that basis. Is that okay?
By the way, I'll try as chair to ensure the meeting is informational in context.
In addition to that, there is a motion by Mr. Calandra that when we deal with the procurement issues in subsequent meetings--we have three lined up--we call the Information Technology Association of Canada on April 23. Colleagues, I'd rather not pick a date, but I am prepared to accept that we will call this industry group, ITAC, at one of the three meetings in the appropriate envelope.
If you're okay with that, Mr. Calandra, we will call ITAC as a witness on the appropriate date. Is that okay?