Yes, and if we decide to invite him back again, that will be a committee decision, but certainly an hour and a half on Thursday, assuming he's available, would be acceptable to the government. I think we need half an hour at the end of the meeting to discuss future committee business to talk about things like witnesses, scheduling of meetings, and the like.
Let me recommit to you and let me reconfirm what I've already said publicly. And I said this at the outset: the government's position has always been that all we want to do is get on with the hearings and hear from witnesses. We have no plans and we certainly have no master design to try to restrict the amount of witnesses coming forward. I've stated from the outset that any reasonable witness would be accepted by the government. In terms of how long that may take, it all depends, obviously, on how many witnesses end up on the final list.
My motion, however—and this is the only deal, and we have discussed this—needs to be passed tonight.
That motion—even though you, David, may not think it is worded appropriately—basically says “witnesses to be determined by [this] Committee at a later date”, which we will start doing on Thursday, I hope, and says that clause-by-clause be completed by May 1. That's contained in my motion, which we will have to vote on tonight, and if we have that passed, then you will see certainly no obstruction and no objection from the government.
With respect to Mr. Lamoureux, David, you've been quite impressive, frankly, in speaking for about seven and a half or eight hours. Having been in the position of filibustering on several occasions in the past, I know the difficulty that this entails. I know the stamina that you need to have to do a filibuster of that length. I also know, quite frankly, that this speaks to your eloquence and your intelligence. You have to be able to be focused, particularly on a motion. This is not a piece of legislation where you have an expansive range of topics that you can discuss.
The chair I think did a fairly good job of keeping you funnelled in, but that's not an easy task, so quite frankly, just from one colleague to another, I congratulate you. I think you did a excellent job on that. You represented your party very well.
Monsieur Lamoureux, however, has not had that opportunity, because you didn't cede the floor. My understanding is that Mr. Lamoureux, on behalf of the Liberal Party, would like to make some comments, either on the motion that Mr. Christopherson brought forward or—I would frankly suggest that we might even give him a little bit more latitude than that—in speaking towards my motion.
We have agreed upon about a 30-minute timeline, Kevin, for you to give some comments. We're agreeable to that, again, all with the proviso—and we'll have to do this procedurally, of course—that my motion is approved.
With that, how I see this unfolding, David, is this. I'll give you again my public commitment, if you cede the floor. I'm the next speaker and I will make the appropriate motion that debate be adjourned on your motion. Then it will come over to my motion. I don't propose to speak to that whatsoever. I think it's fairly self-explanatory. At that time, Mr. Lamoureux, I believe, is the next speaker on the list, and I would cede the floor to him to give him his 30 minutes.
If at the end of that time, Chair, if you can be the watcher of the clock—