I think the rationale for why I would support that is purely from Ms. Keen's response in her letter. In her letter she essentially disputes things. If you look at the chronology and things put out by the CNSC, and the minister's letter, there's a dispute there. So she made accusations in her letter and the minister is now responding.
If she does again make more accusations in her testimony, those accusations would be left there. The minister should have the ability to respond to accusations. If we basically limit or very tightly force the minister to respond in his half hour only to her two hours of testimony, then we're not giving him an advantage to restate his case. I think it's only a matter of fairness.
I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen that they do go back and forth, on a bit of a rotation basis, when they're presenting evidence. Between opening arguments and closing arguments, there's a bit of back and forth. I think that would be eminently fair, that there be some balance of back and forth. That's why I would support it.
We want this to be as fair as possible across the board. If Ms. Keen is going to go first, we would probably have to suggest that she have the same response and to finish off.