Thank you.
There are a couple of points.
First of all, you indicated that I asked to be on the list. However, I felt that I was already on it and always had been on it. That is the issue that happens when we don't have clarity. I have been in committees for 15 years and I have never seen a situation of the chair not giving a heads-up as to who would bespeaking next on a subamendment, an amendment or a motion. It's not necessary to go down the whole roster, but certainly to give a heads-up to the next person up to speak I think is fair.
The second and last point I want to make goes back to the comment I made earlier. Mr. Simard did not hear that which I was talking about because it had nothing to do with his comments, in which he had taken a run at me, but if an MP asks the analysts, for example, to give information, we expect that the analysts will give us information. If we ask the clerk to give us information, we expect the clerk to give us information. That is what I asked for at the very end of the last meeting. It was for the clerk to give us that information.
Mr. Chair, you chose to take that information and, I submit, somewhat editorialize. Therefore, we get to this stage where people are concerned about it. I don't understand why the clerk couldn't answer the question as I had posed it to him. Had that happened, that would have been over as far as I am concerned. That is my point of order.
Again, as far as the lists are concerned, I believe we all have the right to know what it is at various stages. As for our interactions with the clerks, the analysts and so on, I believe that if we ask them for a statement, we should have it directly from them.
Thank you very much.