There are a couple of things. I agree with Mr. Barsalou-Duval that these are not new witnesses we have table-dropped here today. These are witnesses that were submitted by the deadline to the clerk and from whom we received indication that they had declined or ignored the request of this committee.
I would invite, as the Bloc Québécois has done.... They also had witnesses, three witnesses here, on their list who either ignored or declined the request. They have added them. We're not pulling these people off the street all of a sudden. The clerk has these witnesses.
I would encourage on the Liberal side, if the clerk has witnesses, to add them to this motion. That is what we're talking about here. We're not talking about reopening the witness list. The witnesses in this motion, both from the Conservatives and from the Bloc, were invited before the deadline and, for one reason or another, did not agree to appear. Those are the witnesses we're talking about. We're not talking about reopening the call for witnesses, as far as I'm aware.
I would also indicate, now that Mr. Bachrach's amendment has been accepted, that the date in the motion would need to change to May 18 in the two places, in part a) and part b). If we're going with a meeting on climate adaptation for infrastructure on Thursday, that would then need to be four meetings by May 18 as opposed to by May 11. That amendment necessitates a change to our original motion.
I know we indicated as well that we would be willing to consider that amendment if the clerk had firm acceptance from the witnesses who were on our original motion.