I can get to that, if we can get to it rather than filibustering.
There are a couple of things. If that's the will of the committee, then obviously that's fine.
I will note a couple of things. On Bill C-290, we have gone well past the number of meetings we had planned, mostly because the government has constantly made many changes, despite promising not to. I understand and I appreciate what you're saying, but we would have had this done in May if the government had fulfilled its promise and its commitments. However, we can certainly switch to C-290.
The issue about the bureaucrats refusing is not an issue with McKinsey. The bureaucrats are refusing an order of this committee that the big green book states they have to follow.
We'll certainly do the will of the committee, which sounds like it's Bill C-290, but we should not forget that this is an important issue, in that the department heads are deciding what the laws should be and what rules they should follow, not Parliament. We could certainly take care of it by doing a very quick vote to send the report to the House. I've promised that it's not going to be used as a concurrence vote or anything else. It'll be a simple report to the House. If that's the will of the committee, that is fine.
On the issue of the public sector integrity person, we have options. One option that's provided in the book is—I think it's option (c)—to do nothing. It's not a statutory requirement for us to review orders in council.
I have spoken with the parties about this. There might be a chance on Wednesday for this, but if we want to do Bill C-290, then we can do Bill C-290. We will not get through C-290 and put aside time for the nominee in the same time. We still have quite a bit further to go.
Go ahead, Ms. Block.