Thank you, Mr. Chair.
They say they want the committee to work well, but we have just received evidence, once again, that this is not the case. From the outset, the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois formed a coalition to overturn a decision from the chair, something they would not have been able to do otherwise. The Conservatives even defended the Bloc Québécois when it came to the icon that people can click on their website to make a donation. This is the first time I have seen that. They also joined forces by sharing their speaking time to move the original motion and amendments.
Now, as for the consequences of speaking for three hours, as Mr. Barsalou‑Duval said, that is nothing compared to mobilizing the entire public service to provide documents. Whether it is public servants or ministers' offices who contact the departments, the request for documents would need to be dealt with. The train goes in one direction, but it has to come back. So the amendment my colleague is proposing today changes nothing. He is not acting in good faith. The amendment I proposed, which was directly related to the Bloc Québécois' original motion, would have enabled us to achieve our objectives for this meeting. In addition, we agreed to add a witness who had been forgotten. We did not have a problem with that, although I wonder where that appearance will fit into our schedule.
It was publicly stated that I did not want victims to come and testify, whereas in fact, we never voted on that. We have just had discussions. I had an honest conversation with Mr. Barsalou‑Duval behind the scenes, and I told him that I would agree to these witnesses appearing before the committee as long as their testimonies are heard in camera to keep their identity confidential. I would like him to admit it, for the record of the committee. A few minutes later, I heard people say publicly that I did not want victims to testify.
Once again, today, I made concessions in good faith. What I recommended in my amendment is that these witnesses come, but on their own accord. If they want the meeting to be held in camera to preserve their dignity, they should have that option. It would be in the interest of this committee. If they want to come and testify publicly, they can do so. That is what we said, and if that is not a way to put some water in our wine, I do not know what is.
Then, the two two-hour meetings are exactly—