That's right, and I think Mr. Christopherson has found a solution to get on with it. We all want this meeting to happen. This meeting has to happen; obviously there needs to be some follow-up on the report that's gone out, but there are two parts to this whole sordid affair: one is what happened, and two is what we're going to do about it.
We've had numerous witnesses appear repeatedly. That's nothing new. When I look at the list of witnesses we have here, we have Mr. Zaccardelli, who has already been before the committee. I don't have any problem bringing him back, but what he is here to discuss is what occurred, what happened--in the past tense--because he is condemned in the report by Mr. Brown.
If we are going to have him, then we should have the minister who was responsible for that portfolio when the wrongdoing occurred, and that minister, of course, was Anne McLellan.
We've learned in the report that Mr. Zaccardelli conducted himself in an unacceptable manner. We also know that the minister of that time, when asked about it at the beginning of the criminal investigation, stood up and prejudged that criminal investigation by declaring that Mr. Zaccardelli had no conduct whatsoever that needed to be investigated. That's in the parliamentary records. It's been read into the records of this committee.
I think it's only fair that she be asked to come back and explain why she absolved Mr. Zaccardelli before the investigation was even allowed to go ahead and before any findings were allowed to be reached. That is especially important now because we have the findings of Mr. Brown, which suggest there was plenty of conduct on the part of Mr. Zaccardelli that would have needed to be investigated.
Second, what we have learned throughout these proceedings is that the Treasury Board approved increase after increase in allotments to cover the pension and insurance outsourcing. All of that had to go to Treasury Board, and it was approved by Treasury Board members.
The person who is responsible for the Treasury Board is the president. That's the minister who is responsible for explaining the conduct of that board. When we last had him and Ms. McLellan, we did not have all this information. We did not have Mr. Brown's report explaining that there was conduct on the part of Mr. Zaccardelli that needed to be investigated. We did not have all of the information on the Treasury Board submissions that were ultimately approved by the members of that board.
Now that we do, I think it's only appropriate that we bring back Mr. Alcock and Ms. McLellan, who presided over this affair and were the political actors responsible during the time that it occurred. None of this occurred after they left; all of it happened when they were there. At the same time, we have a former Liberal staffer as the CFO under whom all of this occurred and a Liberal MP who was actively involved in the contracting, so I suspect there should be no opposition whatsoever--if the Liberals are willing to be accountable--to support the addition of Ms. McLellan and Mr. Alcock.
These hearings have to happen. Do we have unanimous consent for Ms. McLellan and Mr. Alcock to be added to the list, or do we just add it?