I just want to reiterate what I said, and I'll use an example.
On September 30 I had a meeting with ACTRA. They came to my office, and at that meeting they had as guests who were supposed to come Rex Goudie and Eva Avila. Now, we have Eva Avila, we have Rex Goudie, and I'm sure we have ACTRA here, and probably some other people who would be part of ACTRA.
I think if we're going to get through this, we have to have some semblance of organization, which is why I'm saying that it's kind of important for us to know, when we see these individuals on the list, what organization they're part of. At my meeting it turned out that Eva couldn't make it, but Rex Goudie was there, and I found the meeting really interesting. I thought he had something to offer. So when ACTRA comes before us, they might want to bring one or two individuals with them as part of their appearance before the committee.
I actually wound up having a second meeting with ACTRA, where I met with more people. I'm sure that they may want to come before the committee as well. But we can't have thousands and thousands of witnesses individually appearing before the committee. We have to have some semblance of order. I wouldn't expect that when we have Corus Entertainment, for example, before the committee, or Google, that we would have the president come one day, the marketing director come a different day, and the person in charge of privacy issues come a different day. I would assume that Corus would come as one entity on one day as one witness. And if they bring two or three people, as happens all the time, they will split their time and take questions, as appropriate, for the individuals who are at the table.