In the abstract, Chair, my view of what's ideal hasn't changed in terms of who can shed the most light on this specific issue, but I think Mr. Desjarlais is proposing a good way forward in terms of finding consensus with the addition of witnesses and not the subtraction of witnesses. If there are individuals that particular members think are important to hear from, then others may be surprised to find that they have more to offer than they expected on the particular topic.
My point with the RCMP commissioner was simply that if the goal is to talk about the legal and constitutional issues around sending for documents, the law clerk is the appropriate person for that, but hey, other people may want to ask questions of the RCMP commissioner on various things. I would say that if we're going to try to establish consensus on the principle that it's addition and not subtraction, we can't be selective about that, right?
Our view is that Minister Guilbeault has some important context to add to this conversation. I guess the appropriate way of proceeding would be by unanimous consent or by agreement. If we can agree that Minister Guilbeault stays on the list and that we add the RCMP commissioner, the law clerk and the Auditor General, and then we get back to the main motion so that Ms. Sinclair-Desgagné can propose additional names and then others propose additional names, then I think that's a good way to proceed, if it's agreed to do that.