Well, from my view, I see it being narrower than before.
So that's my only fear, the sense that this is what it would become. You're in the unenviable position--regardless of who comes to you, whether it be the parliamentary secretary Mr. Lemieux, or me, or Mr. Valeriote--of having to say yes or no when we say we'd really like you to ask one, or we'd really like you to ask two.
Quite frankly, I think what will happen down the road is that if you say yes to one and no to the other, you're going to get into a war of justifying it to whomever--i.e., “But you said no to me and yes to them.” That's an unenviable position to have the chair sit in, quite frankly.
I understand, as my friend Mr. Lemieux has quite ably said, that there's a new dynamic. I'm okay with that. That's what democracy is about, dynamics and changes, and things change. But I would offer this up: why don't we send it back to the steering committee to review if there's an additional request for more than one rather than placing the chair in the unenviable position of always having to make that final decision and end up as the person who's saying yes and no?
If he says yes to me all the time when I make the request, I'm a happy camper. If he says no to me all the time, I'm an unhappy camper. But if he says yes to just one other person one time, then I'm really an unhappy camper. In my view, it's not fair to put the chair in....
I'll leave it at that.