Mr. Chairman, I notice that Mr. Dewar has taken my comments about the committee hearing from witnesses, “including, but not limited to”, which is what I had suggested would be a friendly amendment to add to this. Now he's taken it as his own, but he's only left his own three witnesses, which I find most intriguing.
There's an old oil commercial that says you can pay me now or you can pay me later. Either we put the witnesses up front now or we put them in later. I'm just trying to help by moving it along. Heaven forbid that I'm not helping with consensus. I'm a bit intrigued that Mr. Dewar would take my words and then leave it with his three witnesses and not include ours, since the whole idea was to put them up front. Put them up front; here are the witnesses.
I'm not going to withdraw the subamendment. Whatever happens, happens. But I will serve notice that as far as we are concerned, we intend to put these names forth regardless of whether they are accepted today or in the future. But I would have thought that from my colleague's perspective, having taken the words I put forward earlier, he would at least have included those in the subamendment, because it makes sense.