I would like to make a friendly amendment that we have two meetings, if it's possible. Is that okay?
I think that the minister should come before the committee himself and that Mr. Brown would present his report, perhaps Mr. Day and Mr. Brown together. I don't see the need to mix all of these people together. It's a strange mixture of witnesses. The minister is certainly happy to defend his conduct in cleaning up the mess he inherited, and Mr. Brown was an appointee of Mr. Day, so I don't see why the two of them can't come together.
Mr. Zaccardelli, as the Liberal-appointed head of the RCMP, is no longer with us; he deals with the past. If we want to discuss the past any more, I suppose we can do that, but it's not congruent with having Mr. Day and Mr. Brown, who of course are responding to a mess they inherited.
I'm not sure what Mr. Spice's role is in this. Sure, he's a part of it. He was one of the ethics advisors or whatever. But there are lots of people who are equally or even more germane to the discussion than Mr. Spice.
So I would propose that it be two meetings. They can both happen on the same day, if necessary, one being with—