I know Mr. Kotto has no intention of making this any more political a report than it obviously will be.
I would point out that some of the praise the minister had from the witnesses is also absent from the report, so it's a tit-for-tat kind of idea. I suggest that the approach, as you said, Mr. Chair, is to reflect on the testimony and the sequence of events that occurred.
Obviously I'm unaware of all the things that were happening in the background, although certainly I was aware of some that would counterbalance what Mr. Kotto is saying. But I don't see any value in getting into that. I think the approach of this report, which is reflective of the testimony at the committee and the public events in a chronological order, is probably a preferable way to go rather than getting down into the nitty-gritty that Mr. Kotto is suggesting.