Mr. Chair, since we have decided to deal with the two documents together, I would just like to make a comment on the report.
The most recent comments from our Conservative colleagues led us to believe that they were submitting an additional opinion. I would like to let them know that I was disappointed with that. However, I carefully read the contents of their additional opinion and it did not surprise me. That's all I have to say, given that it is their privilege to present an additional opinion.
However, I thought we were going to submit a unanimous report, in a spirit of collegiality. Our Conservative colleagues did not clearly indicate their intention. We found it out afterwards. It's a little disappointing, but not really surprising, given that their most recent comments foreshadowed their intention. I have nothing more to add.
As for the work plan, I must say that I am quite happy today that we have a complete document to look at, unlike the last time. It seems very interesting to me. I really have no problem with the plan we have here. But I would like to make two comments.
I thought we had agreed to hear from Michel Juneau-Katsuya. Mr. Paul-Hus, who is up next, as I understand it, will be able to tell me whether I was dreaming again. I also thought that Ms. Porteous had drawn our attention to a UQAM professor who speaks French and Mandarin and is of Chinese origin, Professor Ting-Sheng Lin. I would agree with adding that witness to our work plan. However, since we would then have to remove a witness from the list, I don't know who it would be. I see the name Paul Evans, from the University of British Columbia.
I am picking Mr. Evans name at random, but could his contribution be more helpful or less helpful than Mr. Ting-Sheng Lin's?
Perhaps the analysts are in a position to enlighten us.