Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My thought was back on the amendment to the amendment to the amendment.
I don't often interject, but I've been through a lot of committee processes, as probably most of us have, and I take exception to the last thing that Mr. Dewar said. It seems that he is setting up a very specific agenda and timetable for the committee.
When I listened carefully to Mr. Bachand's motion, which I was fully prepared to support, it sounded as though we were going to bring in a number of witnesses and spend some time looking at all the issues. That went to the three witnesses we must bring in right now. It was three in the motion, and now it's gone to four who we must bring in at the very outset.
That's not the spirit I was getting from Mr. Bachand at all. What I was getting from him was to have a fulsome, open discussion, and if it includes these witnesses as part of the process, okay.
The steering committee should set the timetable and agenda. I get from Mr. Dewar that he immediately wants these ones because that's the real purpose. The only reason he's supporting the motion of Mr. Bachand is to get these particular four witnesses here. That's the difficulty I'm having.
If it's going to be an open discussion of those particular regulatory processes with a variety of witnesses, that's one thing. However, you're naming these, and you said these are the ones who must start first. In fact, you're predetermining the outcome of this particular--