It's okay. I'm being patient here, but Ms. Bendayan actually jokingly said I should grab my earlier piece of paper.
This is the original thing we talked about three weeks ago and these are my annotations where we grouped these groups intentionally and deliberately. Then I read them very slowly for the clerk so that these could be recorded. Ergo, lo and behold, they appear in the work plan. So the notion that we're revisiting instructions we've already given to the fine people assisting us on this committee is, I think, probably frustrating for them but they're too polite to say so, and I think frustrating for me, at least, because we've already decided this.
The groupings you have on the sheet, independent of the fact that the dates have been inverted on one or two of them, are such that we've already agreed to them. I have no problem with what Mr. White and what I think what Monsieur Fortin are saying about ensuring that these are high enough calibre individuals to provide responses and to take things under advisement or undertake to provide answers, etc. But the notion of revisiting the groupings is probably inefficient—and I'm being polite in my choice of language there. I think we should just stick with what we've already decided. We can play with who arrives on which date, perhaps, but let's stick with the groupings with the proviso that Senator White has suggested, that we don't have low-level officials from various groupings, but have the most senior person possible.