I want to follow up on how we select those individuals. I don't have a preferred selection, but I think Mr. Perron has a good suggestion: those who have knowledge of it.
I think in some respects we're trying to get some recognition across the country for those who may come. I agree with Mr. Ouellet that sometimes it's better to have some distance. They may feel more comfortable because it's not someone they know.
And I think we can have them all. We can have it all in one evening or afternoon, or whenever we select to do it. I don't think we need to stretch this out. We can get some volunteers and we can invite them in. Let's just get it done so we can start to move on to the second phase of the health care. We can't continue to be chastised about not moving ahead, and yet we're the ones responsible if we're not moving ahead.
We've had great dialogue and great witnesses on this, and I think this is that final chapter. Unless there's a good reason to have them in two different sessions, I suggest we instruct the clerk to move ahead and try to set up the witnesses in one meeting.
We've kind of agreed on an informal setting, where it's good for them. We've agreed that it would be better if we can get some disbursement across the country. That may not be as wide as across the country, but we could try to do that.
Now, Mr. Perron is away. Is our next meeting on Tuesday morning?