I have already pointed out to my colleagues that this version that has been sent to us concerns me because it does not quite match the conclusion we reached.
For example, I had proposed that Clive Hamilton, who is now paired with Roger Faligot and Michel Juneau-Katsuya, would actually be paired with Ting-Sheng Lin.
It seems, however, that, right at the end, the clerk asked us whether we were referring to Mr. Lin or Mr. Li, and that your interpretation, Mr. Chair, was that it was Mr. Li. As a result, Mr. Li seems to end up in another group of witnesses and Mr. Lin seems to be on the bench. It seems that you said that I was supposed to nominate a witness for the ninth meeting and that I could propose Mr. Lin at that time. I do not want to be forced to propose Mr. Lin for the ninth meeting just because we overlooked him when the report that committee members are getting this evening was finalized.
Although Mr. Hamilton may be a little out of his element in the group he shares with Mr. Faligot and Mr. Juneau-Katsuya, I had proposed the compromise of adding Mr. Lin to the group with Paul Evans and Gordon Houlden, two other academics. If the committee agrees to include Mr. Ting-Shen Lin—whom our analyst had proposed—with that group of witnesses, I feel that we would be able to come to some common ground.