I would love to speak, Madam Chair. Good afternoon again, everyone.
Clearly, if we look at the minutes from the last May 3 meeting, to see what we did, we notice that we submitted a long list of witnesses or potential players to meet. Twenty-two people are on the list: ministers, public servants, people in the industry, stakeholders and even the investigator. Before we left, two days ago, we suggested this list to the clerk hoping to get the best of all worlds and that important players would come to testify. Our colleague Mr. Szabo even suggested that we invite groups of witnesses. That is the first thing.
As members will recall, those who suggested the names to get the work going, are my colleagues on this side of the table, from the NDP and the Liberal Party—and I say that without partisanship, excluding myself. They suggested names so that we could do the appropriate work. Otherwise, we would be “spinning our wheels”, getting nowhere.
Today, I see that someone came prepared and provided us with a potential schedule on which we can vote. It is still up to the clerk to check the availability of those people, God bless us. Let us recognize the work that has been accomplished.
In light of this possibility, or rather with the hope of being able to adopt something to that effect—we will hear the proposals—whether it is a 24-hour notice or a three-week notice, it is better later than never. Anyway, time flies; it is almost June. In this context, someone can accept with a 24-hour notice and cancel last minute the same way they would if we gave them three weeks notice. So, I would really like us to move ahead and meet the people whose names were suggested.
Ms. Coady's comments bring nothing new to the table. We have all the names in the transcripts from the last meeting. That is where I wrote them all down; I just made a list. All that is left is to move forward with this project.
Madam Chair, I will conclude by addressing the issue of whether to have or not to have cameras here. I am referring to what Mr. Martin said, not long ago, about the fact that it is better to be always in open air than to be in camera from time to time. We must be as often as possible out in the open so that the people hear us, see us work and have access to the information that is being exchanged here between the parliamentarians they themselves have elected. It is even better if there are cameras too. We must not start to be paranoid. Paranoia would develop rather if we were always in camera and the work we do could not be seen.
So I am congratulating both Mr. Martin and Ms. Coady who brought work so that we can move forward. We should not get bogged down; time is precious.
Today, we are receiving no witnesses, but at least we get the chance to examine what kind of work we can do. We can lend our clerk a hand so that this schedule, which changes with each meeting, could finally be a little more consistent. This consistency will come as soon as we are ready to introduce clear and precise proposals. But that is what we are about to do. Everyone is having the same vision and is heading in the same direction. I do not think it is time to pull our hair out and try to find plots when there is work to be done.
Thank you, Madam Chair.