There may be a possible solution, but Mr. Chairman, I never heard of it being silly putting forth specific witnesses to deal with a specific issue. It's quite normal and quite legitimate.
I'm surprised that my friends on the other side aren't concerned there's no time limit. Maybe we should restrict it to four hours, or something of that nature, and say within those confines we're going to have x number of witnesses, these are the ones we have put forward, and we're going to wrap it up--so that we don't go on and on. A timeframe may or may not be helpful.
Originally Mr. Dewar's motion did have a two-hour meeting. If I said we do two sessions and within those two sessions this is what we need to do, it puts us under the gun and makes sure that at the end of the day we deliver what we're looking for.
Nobody's proposing sub-sub-subamendments. What we're asking for up front is this. Here are the witnesses who we believe should be here with regard to the motion that was originally put forth by Mr. Bachand. I don't see any contradiction in that and I don't see that there's any difficulty.
If, at some point, Mr. Chairman, you're interested, or if Mr. Dewar and Mr. Bachand are amenable to restricting the number of meetings so that we can in fact confine it to two sessions, or whatever you want, I'm quite happy to look at that.