Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleague's suggestion. Let me explain. I think we want to avoid any major confrontation from happening at this table. The issue of procurement is a very complex one. In my view, it is not a good idea to sit two opponents down together and let them put on their boxing gloves, and to tell them “Let the better man win”. First, this would not make a good impression on the public. Second, it's already very complicated and we would not be able to follow their arguments.
Personally, I would prefer to hear from Mr. Williams first. There is nothing preventing me from wanting to hear from Mr. Ross, as well, but at another meeting. If you think that Mr. Ross will appear here, at a second meeting, without having read what Mr. Williams said, then you are living on Mars. Mr. Ross will read every word uttered by Mr. Williams. What will probably happen is that, when he appears at a subsequent meeting, he will demolish Mr. Williams' arguments. At least there will be no cacophony, that is, one will not be constantly interrupting the other, and that kind of thing.
I admire you very much, Mr. Chairman. However, even with your considerable talent, you would be hard pressed to keep those two combattants apart.
In the Canadian Armed Forces, it is often said that when two opponents hate each other to death, they have to be kept apart from their adversary by at least one sword's length. If we are to maintain this distance, we need to invite them to separate meetings. In my view, this represents an acceptable distance of one sabre.