I don't want to deal with what Mr. Christopherson raised.
Again, I simply want to urge committee members. I think we're going to have a sense of this fairly quickly in terms of the availability of the various witnesses once we put things out, and it is in our collective interest to try to move things along fairly quickly.
I just want us to think about how this would get sequenced. We're looking most likely at two days to deal with privilege. We're probably looking at least at some period of time at a minimum that we need to instruct the analyst in terms of a report back to the House. We might decide we need more time for privilege, but that is my sense of where things are leading right now, unless the facts change. We have set aside three possible dates: May 16, 18, and 30 to deal with the estimates, and hopefully we can dispense with that within two of our meetings.
Once we have a sense of how this thing is going to sequence, might I suggest that we call a subcommittee meeting to figure out the rest of how we move things forward for at least the balance of the session? That is the practical thing to do.
At that point too the minister wants some certainty as to when she might appear because she has some dates when she is available and some dates she is travelling. That's the issue. I'm happy to have her come as expeditiously as possible so that you can ask your questions, and I'm fine with that.
From that, where do we want to carry on? I'd like to get back to the Chief Electoral Officer's report at least for the balance of the session and get as much of that done as possible.
My cards are on the table, so rather than our getting into the substantive debate of the issues you're raising.... You're raising issues that I think we can come back to in the fall, as a committee, if we can get through the Chief Electoral Officer's report and any legislation that might happen to appear before us, and then go back to other standing order changes if we think we want to get back to that particular issue. That should be—